The Mar Vista road diet has tempers flaring, but shouting people down only makes things worse
By Damien Newton
The author is a board member of the Mar Vista Community Council and former editor of Streetsblog LA.
The reconfiguration of Venice Boulevard has been the dominant conversation in our community over the past month. At the June 13 meeting of the Mar Vista Community Council (an elected board of volunteers who live in the community), the city made its case for removing two lanes of car and bus traffic in favor of protected bike lanes.
The reaction was fierce. The city’s representatives were jeered and heckled. Many attendees, frustrated by increased traffic congestion since the change, booed and even shouted down anyone who dared to voice support for the changes our even suggest the pilot project test period should go forward.
The following night, the MVCC’s Great Streets Ad-Hoc Committee responded to community concerns by passing a resolution calling for Venice Boulevard to return to its original six-lane configuration. That motion comes before the MVCC Board of Directors at our July 11 meeting.
Currently there are two points of view concerning the project in Mar Vista. The first is that the “road diet” is a pilot project that will last for a year (or two if it’s going well) and should be allowed to run its course. The second is that the changes are so awful that they must be undone immediately.
If you get your news from the Nextdoor social network, you may believe that nobody likes these changes. But if comments on Nextdoor truly reflected what communities believe, the anti-development Measure S would have cruised to approval this March instead of getting crushed by a 2-to-1 margin at the ballot box.
Personally, I have been supportive of the project in the past, writing previews for Streetsblog LA and attending Great Streets meetings held by the neighborhood council before I joined as a board member last summer. I am generally supportive of projects that make streets safer for people who are bicycling or walking, as that is what I am usually doing.
Knowing this issue will remain contentious, I hope that we can come together as neighbors and agree to a set of basic facts so that we can have a productive conversation about the best way forward, instead of repeating the acrimony we saw in June.
First, let’s not romanticize how great Venice Boulevard was before the road diet. Five people died along the one-mile stretch of road, now a focal point of the city’s Great Streets program, in the past decade. There was a significant amount of congestion at rush hour, and the bike lane had a reputation among bike commuters as one of the worst in Los Angeles because of the terrible road conditions.
At the same time, let’s not minimize the bad experiences many commuters are having since the road diet, especially at evening rush hour. My personal experience along this stretch of Venice Boulevard hasn’t been as negative when I’ve driven, biked or walked the street in the morning, but I’m told that congestion is far worse in the evening than at other times of the day.
Supporters of the project, myself included, have posted comments about our experiences on the dieted stretch of road that don’t match the rhetoric against the project that we’re hearing. That many of us are experiencing the project differently is one of the reasons we should be approaching discussions of the project’s benefits and downsides as neighbors with differing points of view.
Next, let’s agree that protected bike lanes aren’t some wild idea cooked up in downtown Los Angeles; they are a road design that has worked around the country and throughout the world to make streets safer for all. Maybe they’ll work here and maybe they won’t, but it’s not as though the city created a strange new design concept out of thin air.
This isn’t to say the current road design is perfect. Confusion about how drivers and passengers with disabilities can safely exit their vehicles and cross the protected bike lane to the sidewalk remains a serious concern. And some small business owners have expressed frustration that the design makes it more difficult for customers to get to their shops and restaurants.
But many of the people that have worked on the project, be they volunteers or professionals, have received their share of criticism. Much of this criticism has, sadly, become personal in nature.
Thanks to my previous job covering transportation and development in the city for StreetsblogLA, I’ve had a chance to get to know Jessie Holzer of Councilman Mike Bonin’s office and Carter Rubin of the mayor’s Great Streets program as professionals and people. I can tell you that both believe their work will make our communities safer and more attractive places to live, work and play. You may not share their vision — you may even think they are crazy — but they are hard-working and dedicated to what they’re doing.
Lastly, I hope we can agree that a recall campaign against Mike Bonin is a gigantic waste of time and resources that could be better spent. Bonin was re-elected a couple of months ago with over 70% of the vote, three times more than his closest opponent. He’s not going to lose a recall campaign, but the time and effort spent on such a Quixotic venture would surely divide the community and take our focus away from tackling issues to benefit all of us — such as improving the Great Streets plan for Venice Boulevard.
No matter how the board’s vote goes on July 11, this should not be the end of the conversation about Venice Boulevard. Four lanes or six (and I suspect it will be four lanes for the next year), I think we can all agree there’s more work to be done toward making this Great Street work well for all of us.
Visit lagreatstreets.org/venice for more information about the project and marvista.org to contact the Mar Vista Community Council.
I take this route every morning and evening and it is a total disaster – from the lanes changing from 3 to 2 and the “No Courtesy” zone by so many drivers- I’ve never heard of a little courtesy hurting anyone, but the lack of it most certainly comes close on so many occasions.
What I WOULD like to see get addressed is the constant traffic commotion, blocking of the intersection and the continuous accidents, road rage, never ending traffic jams for the 1/4 – 1/2 mile from Rose & Pacific to Speedway and the parking lot.
People spend hours driving around for parking and when they turn down Rose avenue heading west to park at the lot and it is full it would be nice and a courtesy to them and the neighbors to have a sign and a traffic cop ( as they did for Memorial day) but did not for July 4th directing or motioning traffic to keep moving.
I see cars with their back ends hanging over onto Pacific Ave. waiting to be clipped, not even room for a stroller to be pushed through the congestion at times.
Cars are doing speeds of up to excess of 40 – 50 miles per hour heading east or west between Speedway and Pacific – how about a speed bump or two to curb this nonsense. What about residential parking and permits for the residents – with proper ID!!??
What is it going to take? Another accident, death of a pedestrian, totaled cars being towed away?
If the city and the people who have taken the jobs of taking care of these issues won’t do anything – are you leaving it in the hands of the
neighborhood – Videos, photos, local new stations – what will it be?
I plan to do all of it until something is done – watch for the online videos, names to be broadcast and people to be called out for not doing anything to address these issues.
#2017rosepacificactionnow
Mr. Newton,
I agree with you that this issue has divided so many.
I think coming to some agreements would be very helpful.
Would you agree to any of these facts?
Traffic is gridlocked?
Or emergency personnel cannot get through during high-traffic times?
Or disabled citizens are having a hard time getting from their parked cars to the sidewalk? And that should have been addressed BEFORE this was implemented, not as an afterthought.
Or that a small minority (450) of community members were solicited with surveys?
Or that only about half of those said 450 surveys even talked about removing a lane (per Jessie Holzer)?
Or that the vast majority of Mar Vista residents heard nothing about this ‘pilot plan’?
Or that the businesses on Venice Blvd. are suffering monetarily because of this program?
Or the fact that this one-year- (as stated in all the documents I’ve read) -pilot period is now being pushed to ‘possibly 2 years if it’s going well (your quote)?
Or that the traffic is diverting into the small residential streets that were in no way built for that type of traffic?
Or that it’s going to be worse once school begins mid-August?
Or that the medians look like crap and no one is even attempting to mow the weeds?
Or that it’s very dangerous for bicyclists to be put in a blind spot when drivers are trying to make right-hand turns?
Or the fact that you state when people are opposed to this project, it’s rhetoric you hear, not valid experiences and opinions?
Or the fact that I’ve been told we all should have been more involved? So if you’re more involved you get to push your agenda on us? I’m almost certain I pay more taxes than many, and I’m sure not as much as some, but does that give me any more rights to push my agenda on you?
Five deaths occurred in this one-mile stretch? I wasn’t aware of that. Can you send me the data to back that claim? If these deaths occurred before or after rush hours(s), removing a lane isn’t going to help that. Sad as it may be.
Jessie Holzer and Carter Rubin may very well believe they are trying to make our community safer and more attractive places to live, work, and play. But with all due respect, do they live here? And maybe they should have worked equally as hard to reach out and ask what the majority of the community wanted. I’m sure they’re lovely people and are hard-working, but that doesn’t change any facts. And I would certainly hope there is nothing personal being hurled at them. Although I personally believe they should be more prepared with their data when they attend meetings.
I, for one, do not agree that a recall effort is a huge waste of time and money. He may not lose a recall campaign, just like Trump will never be elected… oh, wait!!!
There is a large amount of people in our community who are outraged with what Bonin has done. Never say never!!
We (a vast majority opposed to this road diet) have been ignored by Bonin and this very Board in outreach. I think that’s where the anger has come from.
Let’s start the civil discourse!!
Gina Sommo
Mar Vista Homeowner/resident
Road Diets, as described by the Federal Highway Administration (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/), typically take four-lane roads, remove two lanes and add a center turning lane. And yes, you can certainly see how a center lane makes things safer. But Venice Blvd. already had that — a center median which is even better than a turn lane. So additional safety in this case, if there is any, primarily comes from congestion. The lane diet doesn’t separate cars, it causes gridlock, which slows cars down. But is gridlock the best way to enhance safety?
Our politicians, when they are being honest, admit that the real goal in these Road Diets is to encourage Angelenos to give up their cars. That might make sense in NY, or Portland, or Amsterdam, but distances are much greater here, and public transportation is much worse. So the Road Diet is a solution in search of a problem. That’s why the Mar Vista Great Street project, during most of the planning process, didn’t include a Road Diet — the lane cut was added at the very end with almost no public comment.
We all have similar goals: more safety for pedestrians AND cars, better bike safety and free flow of traffic. I believe we can have it all. This isn’t the way. We don’t need another year of increased cut-through traffic, slowed emergency response times, and bad traffic for commuters, to figure that out.
Thx Steve for a valuable analysis of this. The recall effort toward Mike Bonin isn’t about whether this is a good or bad plan – most reaction is obviously pointing to the latter – but that it was done without regard for what made sense for the initial and noble goals desired, and without regard for what the people of LA actually desire. True, the people can’t probably get rid of Bonin, but his efforts have shown a disregard to listen to his electorate.
It incenses me to no end that politicians and others keep pointing to the pedestrian deaths to justify what may in fact make the situation less safe. It is cloying and pathetic to use others’ deaths to get your way – as evidenced by the Vista del Mar pedestrian who crossed in the middle of the night & was killed. Memo to Garcetti and Bonin – there’s no traffic at midnight & all you’ve done is paid out $9.5 million of tax-payers contributions for your prior negligence to properly light our cross-ways.
Then to use that poor girl’s death to justify the mess now created is pretty disgraceful, and the people can see right through it. What is the goal of improving bike paths? Is this a get-to-work plan where suddenly commuters will get more healthy and ride a bike 20 miles to work? When I bike, I go to Ballona Creek where there’s no traffic to begin with, and I can ride without concern for cars. I’ve hardly seen a bike now on Venice & the confusion your plan has created just shows how out of touch these career politicians of the city have become.
Thanks, Damien. I’m with you! Like most things, the correct answer is in the middle.
When a minority is able to foist its agenda on the majority without compromise through duplicitous means and with disingenuous reasoning, they will always call for “civil discourse”. This is always easy to do when you get your way.
Its nothing more than a strategy to try an stop the inevitable blowback.
These people have consciously made our quality of life considerably worse in order to feed their utopian agenda. Most of them are privileged enough to avoid the consequences imposed on the rest of us.
When a minority is able to foist its agenda on the majority without compromise through duplicitous means and with disingenuous reasoning, they will always call for “civil discourse”. This is always easy to do when you get your way.
Its nothing more than a strategy to try an stop the inevitable blowback.
These people have consciously made our quality of life considerably worse in order to feed their utopian agenda. Most of them are privileged enough to avoid the consequences imposed on the rest of us.
If people were interested in civility, these proposed changes would have been highlighted during the last city counsel election campaign. They weren’t. They were foisted on us right after Bonin won reelection to a special term lasting over 5 years.
If people were interested in civility, these proposed changes would have been discussed throughout the community. They weren’t. They were only revealed to a very small segment of people which was designed to rig the data in order to justify their actions.
I take it that the author also supports reducing PCH to one lane between Santa Monica and Malibu? After all, there have been numerous serious accidents and deaths involving pedestrians there too.
Don’t fall for the “civility” head-fake from these radicals who want you to either spend less time with your families, or impoverish you by forcing you to give up your primary method of transportation.
Recall Mike Bonin NOW!
I rode on that stretch over the weekend. As a cyclist, I actually don’t like it much and preferred it before, at least not the way it is now with the parking spots next to the ‘cones’. I almost got hit a couple times (had to lock up my brakes at one point to avoid becoming a stain) because right turners are coming in from way farther out in the road, almost two lanes over, and seem to be less likely to look for you, and by the time they pass obliviously inches in front of you they’re already flooring it with no chance to stop, while before, when they were directly next to the bike lane, you were more visible before their right turn.
No body cares about your bicycling on massively trafficked and gridlocked streets in Los Angeles. We live in a democracy, buddy. Majority rules. There are 10,000,000 automobile commuters to every bicycle commuter in California. If you don’t want to commute in a car then take the bus or walk down the sidewalk. Sharing the overused and already gridlocked roads with drivers is NOT AN OPTION. You want to get exercise and ride a bike in LA? Then go down to the beach and ride on the bike path or get yourself one of those stupid exercise bikes and peddle away like you’re on the Tour De France in your own living room or any other room in your house but not on OUR ROADS!!!!!
People ride for transportation, not just exercise. Sharing is actually the law, so it most definitely is an option. The gridlock is caused by cars not cyclists (will drivers ever figure this out?). When i’m riding, I can easily go around all the stopped cars and get to my destination faster than you when it’s rush hour.
You seem like an angry person looking for something besides the reality of too many cars for the existing roads to blame your traffic woes on. You were right about one thing though, it is ‘our’ roads. We all pay for it with our taxes and are allowed to use it within the scope of the law, which includes, you guessed it, bicycles.
Bicyclists don’t pay road taxes (gas rax) if they don’t drive.
As for the law, maybe bicyclists should actually OBEY the rules (traffic laws) of the road, like waiting for green lights, stopping at stop signs, riding with traffic – not against, and stay off the pedestrian sidewalk.
Vincent, l am with you on the taxes. If bicyclists want to have the right to ride in the middle of the lanes, and run stop signs, ride against traffic and ride on side walks like there is no law to follow,lock of common sense or just being a jerk. They should pay taxes like drivers do to maintain the roads etc.
My previous comment was for vincent, but ‘soul’.. who says we have the right to run stop signs and all that other illegal stuff? It’s still illegal, just like it is for all the cars that run stop signs and speed etc… and we do pay taxes just like drivers that pay for roads. The majority of it doesn’t come from gas taxes, plus most cyclists also own cars and, you guessed it, buy gas for them.
Contrary to popular belief, road taxes come from general taxes. That argument gets old, so does the ‘traffic laws’ argument. Maybe you should do the same in your car and follow the laws! See how that works? I assumed you don’t obey the laws just because I see other drivers running lights, speeding, texting etc. all the time. That automatically means they’re all bad, right?
It’s absolutely time to recall Bonin. He refuses to take calls from councilmembers and mayors of surrounding cities concerned about the road diet! He now blocks comments on his facebook page because he didn’t want the public to see how many people were against his plan. He has blocked opponents on FB and twitter who were being very respectful but didn’t agree with him. He hasn’t shown up to several community meetings that discussed the closed lanes. I already wasn’t much of a fan, but to ignore the voters and other local government officials means it’s time to get someone new that will actually represent our community!
I’m from Westchester/Playa del Rey and while we may have one a victory, it is only a small one. The powers that be continue to think the road diet is the way to go despite all of the evidence to the contrary. The problem that I keep seeing here in terms of “civil discourse” is that typically, something like the road diet, is simply hoisted on to the public without any real discernible discourse with the people its going to affect most, in my case Playa del Rey and Westchester. “Facts” are used to justify some of the most obvious nonsense in a grossly disengenuous way. In PDR, the argument was that the diet would help reduce deaths that had already occurred there. Problem, the people who were killed: one was intoxicated walking alongside a roadway without a curb or a sidewalk or streetlights and some, if not all, of the others were killed late in the evening on a roadway without street lights late into the evening. How are bike lanes supposed to prevent that?
Easy fix? Put in lights, put in a sidewalk, put up well lit cross walks. Instead, the City deliberately caused more traffic in order slow us all down and then claim “well. it is only South Bay commuters who are being inconvenienced and why should we care about them?” What about the neighborhoods that all of this traffic was going through? The current crop of politicians we have elected have all gone to some kind of seminar that has taught them to believe they are smarter than us, know what’s best for us, and that our anger is somehow based in ignorance more than anything else. Civil discourse? That happens when one side of the argument actually treats you with some kind of respect for your thoughts. This episode just exposes how Mike Bonin thinks, and frankly government operates here in Los Angeles, and California as a whole. Being loud is the only reason why Bonin paid any attention at all to his constituents. If you want to kill the balance of these stupid road diet ideas, that is going on throughout the City of Los Angeles, the anger has to continue and civil discourse be darned.
I was at this meeting and the characterization of people “jeering and heckling” city officials and “shouting down” supporters of these changes is misleading at best. People on both sides of the debate voiced their opinions at in appropriate times, but I didn’t find anyone from either side of the debate to be overtly rude.
It’s interesting to me that it is only the supporters the “road diets” that attempt to smear the people the other side of the debate. This is the third time I’ve seen an article attempting to paint those who don’t believe these changes benefit all users of our roads characterized in a less than flattering light with accusations that are light on facts. And I say this as someone who attended each meeting after which this accusation was made.
Especially coming from someone in your position, as a board memeber who is there to represent the entire community, I find these misrepresentations very troubling.
“Lastly, I hope we can agree that a recall campaign against Mike Bonin is a gigantic waste of time and resources that could be better spent. Bonin was re-elected a couple of months ago with over 70% of the vote, three times more than his closest opponent. He’s not going to lose a recall campaign, but the time and effort spent on such a Quixotic venture would surely divide the community and take our focus away from tackling issues to benefit all of us — such as improving the Great Streets plan for Venice Boulevard.”
With all due respect sir, you just ignited the fire. The difference, you’re taking on people in tech, tech people who know how to use data to get what we want and how we want it. In fact, it’s time for defcon 3. I look forward to recalling Mike Bonin. I don’t have any personal problem with the guy, I have a problem with the fact he thinks he can do things without putting it to his constituents to make a vote happen. YOU’RE NOT UNTOUCHABLE, NONE OF YOU.
I’m not sure if I saw one comment on this blog in favor of this debacle. I actually believe that the comments posted “truly [reflect] what the community believes.” This blog is just more of the condescending “we know what’s best for all of you” attitude that plagues this state, this county, and this town.
One commenter asked for arguments in favor of encouraging cycling for transportation. There are many, at all scales, from the personal to the global: personal and public health (assuming no collisions with cars); less wear and tear on roads; encouragement of more compact urban development, which increases the tax base per square mile; reduction of the amount of public infrastructure that must be provided (roads, street lights, first responder coverage, etc.); reduction of carbon emissions both in terms of the carbon footprint necessary to produce the vehicle as well as the fuel necessary to propel that vehicle; zero particulate emissions. It’s worth noting that every transportation cyclist is benefiting not only her/himself. (S)he is also benefitting all of the motorists by not adding to traffic, or, critically, to carbon emissions. Conversely, everyone who opts to burn fossil fuels when there are other options produces a host of negative economic externalities, costing the taxpayers far more than (s)he pays, not the least of which is pollution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles
Cycling for transportation also has downsides: the risk of injury and property damage due to collisions with much larger and heavier vehicles such as cars; it’s more adversely affected by weather conditions such as rain or very hot days; travel range is limited by time and fitness.
The point of building cycling infrastructure is to provide the public with a way to enjoy the upsides without the very significant injury downside. Again, it bears repeating that every transportation cyclist benefits not only him/herself, but also (albeit minimally) every other living being on this planet. Every motorist does exactly the opposite.
I’ve also read through all of the comments opposing the new bike lanes and would like to address each.
“gridlock times has about doubled both morning and evening…road rage”: I guess that this is an exaggeration, but it’s almost certainly true that motorist traffic will be worse in the short term. However, gridlock is a factor of 1) the number of cars and 2) the available space for those cars. Providing more space for cars does not usually lead to less traffic – in fact, the opposite is more likely to occur: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/. We’ve been trying for decades to devote more and more space, resources, tax breaks, subsidies, etc. to motorists, but congestion just keeps getting worse, and the failures of car-centric urban design are becoming too large to ignore. It’s time to develop and encourage the use of transportation alternatives, and, in a relatively flat city like LA, with an ideal cycling climate, it’s hard to argue that bikes should not be part of the solution.
“more pollution due to more idled vehicles”: it may be true that there’s more pollution and carbon emissions per vehicle due to idling in the short term, but it’s hard to take seriously the argument that free flowing consumption of fossil fuels in 2 ton vehicles is more environmentally sound than cycling. Global overheating is a real, serious problem that requires both collective action as well as individual action. Policies such as those that encourage recycling and discourage the voluntary wastage of resources such as water are widely accepted. Policies that discourage the necessary waste of fossil fuels and the promotion of alternatives to that waste should be encouraged whenever possible. We have already warmed more than 1ºC, which is more than halfway to the 2ºC point of irreversible impacts on people and ecosystems. The time to reduce carbon emissions was more than 20 years ago, but since we have insisted on the ostrich strategy of pretending that it’s not happening, it’s extremely urgent now.To oppose a transition away from the most inefficient (in terms of energy and in terms of space – see, for example, http://theconversation.com/which-transport-is-the-fairest-of-them-all-24806 and http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/media.thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/10175644/picoftheday0012-space-60people2.jpg?w=590&h=431) is to advocate accelerating our march towards 2ºC of global warming.
“more accidents”: this is dubious. Most data from here and abroad shows the opposite. In fact, it can be argued that the safest configuration of all is to mix all modes of transportation without any markings at all: https://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/. To achieve this, however, it’s first necessary to have significant numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, because the increase in safety is premised on the diversity of modes of transportation. If only one mode is overwhelmingly dominant, it’s more dangerous for everyone, including motorists.
“less business for area store fronts”: this is also not backed up by the available evidence.https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/
“waste of tax dollars”: this is also dubious, and in fact, the opposite is likely true. Every tax dollar spent to encourage cycling over motoring is likely to produce not only savings in road maintenance, reduced infrastructure demands, and, crucially, reduced public health risk due to particulate and carbon emissions, but it is also likely to encourage the sort of dense development that increases municipal tax bases. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money
“traffic doesn’t disappear. It diverts to surrounding communities”: this is true only if nobody changes to cycling, which is unlikely. https://nacto.org/2016/07/20/high-quality-bike-facilities-increase-ridership-make-biking-safer/
“Property values [decline]”. This is also unlikely, and in fact the opposite is likely to occur. http://cityobservatory.org/the-economic-value-of-walkability-new-evidence/
“Majority rules” / “get off of our roads”: This one is just too myopic to take seriously. Yes, motorists are the majority, but not so long ago, smokers were also the majority, in spite of the dangers to themselves and to others. We’ve progressed beyond that point, and we’ll get past this one as well. The evidence against car-centric public policy is just too overwhelming.
“you can’t expect white collar personnel who need to get to an office to bicycle to work”. This is directly contradicted by almost every other major city in almost every other developed country, and it’s even contradicted by many major cities in the US, including some of the most economically vibrant ones. The increasing efficiency and availability of electric bikes only makes it easier for white collar personnel to commute by bike.
In sum, the arguments given to oppose the new bike lanes are unconvincing. If anti-cycling motorists can’t be brought to stop participating in creating traffic (while constantly complaining about the results of that participation), then perhaps they can be brought to see the sense of sheer selfish entitlement shown by insisting on their exclusive right to inflict harm on others, at the maximum speed possible.
Many have commented that LA is too large and spread out to be anything but a “car culture”. However, 1) LA has not always been so large and far-flung: it developed that way for many reasons, but a primary one was that car, tire and petrol companies conspired to eliminate all competing modes of transportation in favor of the one that added to their markets; and 2) parts of LA are already more dense than Manhattan, so the single family detached ranch house with 2 cars paradigm is unlikely to be the development paradigm for much longer. To call it “social engineering” by the “social justice warriors” when steps are taken to reverse the negative effects of corporate conspiracy, while accepting the results of that conspiracy as somehow immutable is the height of ideological blindness.
It’s undoubtedly true that there are many cyclists who don’t follow the rules of the road, just as it’s undoubtedly true that there are many drivers who don’t (e.g., speeding, slowing but not stopping at stop signs, and especially playing with smartphones while driving). One might argue that there should be enforcement of vehicular laws as they pertain to cyclists, but then, to be fair, they should also be applied to motorists with equal vigor. I wonder how many motorists on this forum would really be in favor of equitable enforcement.
On the other hand, many actually cyclists tend to be very conservative when riding – the advice that’s often dispensed to urban cyclists is to “ride like you’re invisible”, for the sound reason that, even if the motorist is at fault in a collision, it’s usually the cyclist that pays the heavier price in terms of injuries and property damage. Many cyclists tend to let drivers go first, even when they have the right of way, precisely because a cyclist can never know if a driver actually is paying attention and saw them. I would guess that many motorists never realize this happens for exactly the same reason that cyclists do it – they’re just not paying attention.
More to the point, traffic and road laws curtail individual freedoms because there’s a wider social and public health benefit to doing so. We all agree to participate in that system because we realize that, collectively and even individually, we’re ultimately better off by accepting limits to our individual choices. That’s exactly what cycling as a transportation choice does. There’s an environmental, public health, social, and even fiscal benefit to every gallon of gasoline that’s not burned for transportation due to someone making the responsible choice to travel by bicycle when (s)he could easily have also travelled by car. Therefore, it makes good public policy sense to promote the transportation mode that leads to more positive social outcomes, even when, and maybe even because, it inconveniences motorists (who, by choosing to drive when they could have biked, are making a socially damaging choice).
An analogy might be tobacco laws. These laws curtail individual freedoms because the exercising of those freedoms damages the health and well being of others. The willful burning of fossil fuels does exactly the same thing, and it does it at a global level, with much more serious effects. In a fully rational world, given where we are in our seemingly headlong quest to overheat the planet (already halfway to the 2ºC mark), the continued voluntary burning of fossil fuels would be heavily taxed, if not banned outright, just as cigarettes are heavily taxed and banned in many cases. I fully understand that driving is, in many cases, the only realistic transportation option, and it’s therefore not always by choice, unlike, perhaps, smoking. However, I would also appeal to motorists to understand that, at this point in time, cycling for transportation is analogous to choosing to be a non-smoker in the 50’s: it’s a choice that benefits even those who oppose that choice (perhaps while inconveniencing them), and it’s undertaken in spite of the risk of injury through no fault of one’s own. If anti-cycling motorists can’t be brought to stop participating in creating traffic (while constantly complaining about the results of that participation), then perhaps they can be brought to see the sense of sheer selfish entitlement shown by insisting on their exclusive right to inflict harm on others, at the maximum speed possible.