By Geoff Page
In September 2021, The OB Rag carried a piece titled, “The Politics of Fear: Bicycling Deaths, Crosswalks and Dog Bites,” by this writer. The piece contained a review of 13 cycling accidents and it created a howl of anger from cycling advocates.
The anger was directed at anyone who had the temerity to question the public agenda of those promoting cycling. It was shown in the article that the use of these 13 accidents to further the cyclists’ cause was dishonest.
The reaction to the piece was so strong that a cycling nut from Los Angeles, Peter Flax, descended on The Rag and this writer and did everything he could to discredit both.
It was discovered that Flax was trashing this writer on Twitter. Having a Twitter account for several years, but never having used it, I engaged Flax on that forum. But, he quickly retreated from a tough conversation and blocked this writer from his account.
During those exchanges, another, local, cycling nut case, Paul Jameson, jumped into the fray criticizing The Rag and this writer. He was also briefly engaged on Twitter and very quickly also blocked this writer rather than answer difficult questions.
Because of all this, more attention was paid to other information the cycling groups were spreading. For example, the Twitter feed today for the San Diego County Bike Coalition leads with a story about a cyclist killed in San Marcos. But, according to the news it was completely the cyclist’s fault. The Bike Coalition didn’t say that, of course.
The Bike Coalition also sends out information as San Diego Crash Alerts@SDCrashBot. It describes itself as:
“Bot tracking every bike/ped crash in San Diego. Each one is a policy failure. Run by @sdbikecoalition w/ program from @streetsforall & data from @citizenapp”
This crash alert program the bike coalition created notifies followers of every reported or actual accident involving a vehicle and a pedestrian or a bicycle.
When you click on @citizenapp you get a dark map from a site called “citizen.com.” The map shows where the incident happened and the three reports that came in, as follows, starting from the bottom.
“The woman is stated to have sustained minor injuries.
Mar 6 7:38:13 PM PST
Police on the scene are blocking off the area.
Mar 6 7:32:34 PM PST
Police are responding to an unconfirmed report of a pedestrian struck by a vehicle.
Mar 6 7:32:33 PM PST
Incident reported at Fort Stockton Dr & Falcon St.”
This was all of the information available. According to the bike coalition, “Each one is a policy failure.” In the case of this one example, that is a completely unsubstantiated claim and is therefore dishonest. The pedestrian could have been at fault, in which case, no policy failed.
They Tweet out every single incident basically using information deceptively to promote their claim that the streets are unsafe because of cars and poor infrastructure. There is no way to determine who was at fault for the incidents. But, who checks these reports?
People who think the bike coalition is wonderful willfully accept this information to mean what it is intended, that all of the pedestrians and cyclists were blameless. That if we just changed our policies to do what people like the bike coalition believe we should, none of this would happen. By saying that all of these are policy failures, the bike coalition shot its credibility in its own foot.
Then, there is the new bike counter.
Bike Counter
During this new foray into Twitter, it was learned that the city installed a bike counter on 30th Street to see how many people are using the new dedicated bike lanes. These statistics are also trumpeted to show the “success” of what the cycling policies have done for 30th Street.
Having lived in town for decades, this writer remembers when 30th and University, and the surrounding areas, were depressed and not very appealing. Beginning around 2001, I visited the area including Laurel Street two blocks west of 30th on Switzer Canyon on a semi-regular basis. This writer drove this corridor regularly for years and watched it transform. The transformation was the work of many small businesses.
30th became the vibrant place it is now with restaurants, coffee shops, breweries, and bars all the way south to Upas Street. People now come from all over the city to 30th, or used to.
Recently, I made a trip to see the new bike lanes that had been constructed over the last couple of years. It was appalling. All of the road north and south of University was red curb, virtually no parking was left. On both sides of the road. All to make bike lines on a busy, important street, when quiet streets parallel 30th to the east and the west.
There appears to be no accommodations for delivery trucks and several were seen precariously parked in the street. There is an alley, but a 15-foot-wide alley is not the optimal place for large, wide, tall trucks. Some of the lots with multiple businesses don’t appear to physically allow easy access from the alley.
This writer had to wonder how parents with little children and all their things would manage patronizing the businesses. Then, there is the elderly class that doesn’t move well anymore, perhaps uses a walker. How far will they have to roll?
What 30th now looks like is a place for unencumbered, healthy, young adults and for some unencumbered, healthy, older adults. For everyone else, it is a mess and will discourage certain people from coming there at all, the too old, the infirm, children, the disabled. Maybe that is by design.
Why these riders could not have been satisfied using the quiet parallel streets is the question that is never answered when posed. One day, there will be reliable information on what this has done for, or to, 30th Street.
Back to the counter. The city placed a bike counter on 30th Street about 30 feet south of University Ave., on both sides of the street. It consists of wiring embedded in the pavement much the same as traffic loops are placed. The diamond patterns are in the new bike lanes.
A tall electronic cabinet stands on the corner showing the trip count for the day and the total since the device was placed in January this year. The numbers can be seen here . https://data.eco-counter.com/public2/?id=300022074#
There is a chart that shows the bicycle and scooter trips during the day. It can be changed to show by the day, week, or month. It can also be made to show counts in each direction, north and south. It does not provide time during the day.
An email was sent to Everett Hauser, Program Manager in the Transportation Department who handled this installation. Among the questions put to him was one about how the device counted two different modes of travel.
Hauser’s reply, with a link, was: “The Eco Counter has software algorithms that differentiate bikes and scooters based on wheelbase.”
The problem was that the link went to the Eco Counter webpage that only had information about counting pedestrians and bicycles.
The Eco Counter is made by a French company named Eco Compteur. I sent an email to the company February 24 and the first response was that the counter that could count scooters would not be available until this spring.
Hauser was asked about this and replied with a link that was already viewed, the one that shows the actual counts. https://data.eco-counter.com/public2/?id=300022074
Hauser was emailed again asking if he could explain what he and the city were saying about the device and what the maker of the counting devices said. Hauser sent another link, https://www.eco-counter.com/blog/counting-bikes-e-scooters-with-zelt-evo-counter/. This went to the Blog section of the eco counter company website and it was about scooters.
There was button in the article titled “Learn more about our bicycle/scooter counting program.” Clicking the button opens a new page about a bicycle counter, no mention of scooters.
Other than this blog article that mentioned scooters, there was nothing anywhere on the site about scooters. There was nothing in the Products drop down menu.
In a follow up exchange with the device maker, the responder had no idea how San Diego was counting scooters. The link to the blog Hauser provided was sent and this was the response that came back:
“Indeed, the City of San Diego is one of the few that was able to get those counters. Also, they are using the version of the counter that requires to be hardwired. The version that we are launching this spring is the low power option that runs on batteries.
They are indeed able to differentiate between bikes and scooters then.”
Still nothing on the company website about counting scooters. If anything, San Diego may have gotten a beta version because the product is clearly not on the market today. How reliable is this equipment?
The location of the counter, and there is only one, could be questioned. It was placed right at 30th and University. When asked about the location, Hauser stated, “The site was chosen for it’s [sic] visibility in the heart of North Park. Near the North Park sign, should get lots of traffic, both bike/scooter, but also people seeing the counts.”
Naturally, for those responsible for the 30th Street bike lanes, the higher the count the better in order to counter the many criticisms of this project. What might a counter read at the halfway point or at the far north or south ends? Is one counter enough?
It would be good to know more about the cyclists such as what counts would be hourly and what the path is used for. Knowing how many are cycling commuters and how many are out for pleasure would be valuable.
Looking at the figures for trips coming and trips going, the numbers are very close. It is possible a large number of the counted cyclists are using the new path for commuting and not for soliciting the businesses along 30th. The question again would be why not use the roads paralleling 30th on the east or west sides if commuting is all they are doing?
Park Blvd.
Now there is a big push to do this same thing on Park Blvd. Another stretch of businesses that will be harmed if all the available street parking is removed. And, looking at a map, there are plainly streets that parallel Park that could serve as the bike routes. Just like there are roads that parallel 30th that could be used.
The point of all this is that statistics can be misleading, especially if presented in a dishonest manner.
Many of those advocating for bike lanes use deceptive tactics to sway the public. These tactics are self-defeating. It does not matter who tries it but when people see dishonesty, even once, trust disappears.
Add to that these groups getting into bed with developers promoting density and removing the 30-foot height limit and their credibility is shredded.
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
“What 30th now looks like is a place for unencumbered, healthy, young adults and for some unencumbered, healthy, older adults. For everyone else, it is a mess and will discourage certain people from coming there at all, the too old, the infirm, children, the disabled. Maybe that is by design.”
As I commented in another article, I had lunch one day in one of the eateries (I biked to it) and per the conversation going on, that very much IS the attitude. Other patrons were very upfront about their desire to see less elderly out and around in their presence and also less people from other parts of town and less tourists. As appalling as that attitude is, it very much is a growing sentiment among younger generations. At 60 I should be appalled myself but I just try to accept that this is how things are going to be as I get older and to take it with a grain of salt. Personally, I’ve been taking advantage of that lane since it’s there anyway and have seen a growing # of riders using it. I like to do a big loop in that I ride from Balboa park along Park Blvd all the way up to Adams and head to 30th and make my way down. I think the common belief is that while some businesses will suffer, others will thrive and new ones will go in that will appeal to the less car dependent crowd. How all this pans out remains to be seen.
Chris, as always, you provide reasoned comments. It is also good to see someone else affirm what I suspected about 30th.
One of your last sentences caught my eye, “I think the common belief is that while some businesses will suffer, others will thrive and new ones will go in that will appeal to the less car dependent crowd. ” I think that is right on.
The problem I have with that belief, – and I’m not saying you sympathize with this sentiment Chris – is that it is very callous. Why should any businesses suffer and have to leave that were there before this change was made? That kind of thinking makes me see red but I agree, that seems to be the attirude.
Thank you Geoff. Yes it IS very callous, but unfortunately it’s what prevails among many in that area. What’s really sad is the elderly and less mobile who already live in NP. A place they like to patronize is only an arms length away but now out of reach. Added irony is, the people who old this callous attitude are not that young themselves. Mostly 30s and up to mid 40s.
Aren’t those 30 & 40 somethings actually middle-aged folks?
They are but still younger than me since I am 60 lol.
Chris, I believe, at least in Hinduism, you’re about due for your next 60!
Enjoy!
Removing traffic lanes and parking for the sake of bike commuters is classist and racist. Maybe they should add that data to the count.
Those who are in favor of taking away parking in favor of bike lanes in their true heart of hearts feel not doing so is classist and racist. It comes down to one’s personal interpretation.
Poorer people bike as transportation the most of any class, and own the fewest cars. Same for people of colour.
Interested to hear how you figure a bicycle lane is racist and classist in light of those facts.
“the most of any class…” What classes are we talking about? What do you have to support what you’ve said?
Socioeconomic class, as in the sense of classist used by triggerfinger
For income:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-30/cycling-s-equity-gap-divides-low-income-bike-riders-and-high-income-bike-share-users
For race:
https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/equity_report.pdf
I looked at the links, Trevor, but am not impressed. Here is what the first one said, among other things:
“The American Community Survey from 2008 to 2012 (also compiled in Commuting in America, 2013) breaks down bike travel by household income among the working population. Lower-income households bike to work in greater shares than higher-income homes:”
The accompanying chart shows less than 2% of the population earning less than $10k commuting by bicycle, seems pretty small. And, the percentages go down as the income goes up. But, I do not see what population numbers or geographical locations this is based on.
The next chart shows the number of bike commuters, by household income. The top number being about 300K commuters in the less that $50K income bracket. It does not say what total population this represents or where the population lives. The document then states:
“Altogether the figures suggest two very different types of bike riders. One can afford to live in an expensive part of the city so close to work that owning a car isn’t necessary. There’s probably a bike-share station nearby, as a neighborhood amenity, because enough wealthy residents live in the area to sustain it financially. Riding in general is easier because there’s plenty of bike infrastructure in place.”
The second sentence of that certainly would not apply to San Diego. What they followed with also certainly did not apply and makes one wonder where the population surveyed lives.
“The other (meaning bicycle communter) lives in a more remote part of town and likely would prefer to own a car because their commutes by bike or transit take a very long time.”
The second link was from The League of American Cyclists. It’s major flaw is its use of nothing but percentages. There is no better way to be deceptive than to use percentages and no numbers. Here is something from the link:
“In fact, according to 2001 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compared to white bicyclists, the fatality rate was 23% higher for Hispanic and 30% higher for African-American riders.”
The numbers these percentages are based are not included. The percentages in this next quote actually work against the position.
“Average percent of commute by bikes in 2010 .53% white, .6% Latino, .7% Native American/Alaskan Native, African Americans .3%.”
So it appears that white people commute more than African Americans and about as much as Latinos, which seems the opposite of the other information. Not sure why there was a special category for Native American mixed with Alaskan Native. Are Alaskan Natives not considered Native Americans?
As you know, I lean more in the pro bike direction. The problem with people like Peter (former editor of Bicycling Magazine) and Paul (what happened to Mary?) is they truly feel the world needs to change according to how they feel the world should be. Peter moved to LA knowing full well that it’s not a very bike friendly city (in the actual city). He always goes on about how shocked he is at the pro car attitude the city is known for (like VERY well known). It’s the equivalent of moving next to an airport and complaining about the noise. Yes changes ABSOULTY need to and SHOULD be done up there, but flipping off drivers (he admits he does this) and getting into hostile engagements with them isn’t changing anything. I’m amazed he hasn’t been intentionally ran over yet. It could just be a matter of time. He and Paul (who comically demanded your article to be removed) help perpetuate the stereotype of cyclists being namby pampy snowflakes, and that doesn’t help us in the long run. It’s kind of sad because I fully agree with them that we need to improve bike safety and infrastructure.
Yes, you are very honest about your pro bike stance, Chris. What many readers don’t understand is, I’m not anti-cycling. What I am against are the tactics used to further the cause and the people who seem to be out front, like Flax. They spread false or misleading information and as soon as someone asks for substantiation, they bolt, they never want to be accountable for what they say.
Before he blocked me, I did read about Flax’s complaints about LA but I had to laugh. He lives in eastern Manhattan Beach, that is, as you said, the city. Frankly, I think the guy would love to creamed on the street so he could live on as a martyr.
The last part of your comment helped make the point I’m trying to make. “He and Paul (who comically demanded your article to be removed) help perpetuate the stereotype of cyclists being namby pampy snowflakes, and that doesn’t help us in the long run. It’s kind of sad because I fully agree with them that we need to improve bike safety and infrastructure.”
Does the whole world of cycling fans want these people speaking for them and using tactics that only create unnecessary animosity for their sport? I don’t think so, but by not speaking up, they are letting it happen and that is only slowing progress.
I mean, I very much would like to see bike infrastructure and safety improved in LA, including the South Bay part of it where Peter lives. I truly want to see it become less car dependent. How to get it that way I have no idea. It needs to happen but we won’t wake up tomorrow morning and hola there it is. There’s now way he moved there and should be shocked. It’s like moving to Arizona and being shocked by the amount of Trump supporters.
Good one, Chris! I’ll bet Flax will be trashing us both on Twitter.
Probably!!
The thing Peter is right about though is there really are a LOT of ahole drivers. I don’t mean simply not paying attention but drivers who truly hate seeing cyclist on the road, even if the cyclists are not blocking them. I’ve known (and had to work with) quite a few. The more extreme of these drivers have intentionally hit cyclists and feel no remorse for deaths or permanent body disfigurement. They don’t make up most drivers ofcourse but they’re not rare either. As of yet, I have never been hit but I have been coal rolled on Fiesta Island, so I can understand his anger.
There is no doubt the road is full of ahole drivers, no one could argue wit that. What I’m trying to get at is why there are angry drivers who don’t like cyclists. I think it is precisely because of things like what has happened on 30th and because of encounters with arrogant – let’s be clear – ahole cyclists. My biggest objection to what is happening is this ridiculous need to have bike paths on very busy roads if there are alternatives. There is an intransient attitude that bikes should be allowed to be anywhere at any time. By insisting on being on busy roads for no reason, other than some kind of right, they antagonize drivers. Unnecessarily.
I think we both agree it goes both ways.
There is an intransient attitude that bikes should be allowed to be anywhere at any time
There is an intransient attitude that autos should be allowed to be anywhere at any time
It’s a catch 22. There are ahole cyclists because of ahole drivers. There are ahole drivers because of ahole cyclists. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I was thinking more of how quick people bemoan changes to the status quo when it is so heavily skewed towards the personal automobile.
Think specifically of our community where we have 10+ north/south parallel arterials all optimized for usage by personal autos. Is that necessary? Why do we need Abbot, Bacon, Cable, Sunset Cliffs, Ebers, Froude, Guizot, Santa Barbara, Venice, Catalina, Chatsworth, and Rosecrans all as two-way automobile first streets with nothing more than sharrows and narrow sidewalks?
Bike Guy’s, those bike shorts, I just can’t get past them, they alway’s give me a good belly laugh, especially those with the huge maxi “crotch” pad, that make you bike guy’s waddle when you walk, keep riding those bikes fellow’s we all enjoy a good laugh and you fellow’s provide a good one,
Jenn
ps-no I do’t ride a bike, it’s the bus for me.
Maybe you should ride a bike.
These anti bike rants are just so weird, and deranged and out of line with the rest of the OB, so weird!
What anti bike rants are you referring to? The discussion is about bike lanes, not biking.
And dishonest tactics. If there was ever any doubt in anyone’s mind about that, have a look at this story from KUSI yesterday.
https://www.kusi.com/climate-action-gone-wild-city-of-san-diegos-redesigned-two-lane-angers-residents/
Curious… How many parking spaces were displaced? Meter revenue too? Is a scooter defined as a stand-up electric model like those that invaded San Diego in 2018? Is a fat tire electric bike a scooter? Can a Vespa-like scooter ride in the bike lane? Were the restaurant and bar street patios removed for the bike lanes? Thanks.
Can’t answer all the questions but I believe 400 parking spaces were removed. As for scooters, I’m not sure they are well defined anywhere but I don’t think an electric bike is in that category. I believe this thing counts the stand up type scooter. And, yes, it gets confusing because road legal scooters, like Vespas, are also called scooters.
Seems to me, anything called a scooter should be able to use those bike lanes. I rode on two wheels for many years and have always said the first best step would be to get people into smaller, more efficient transportation, like scooters. But, people are afraid of riding this way, understandably. I was smacked by a guy coming out of a driveway so I understand. But, if they could ride in those bike lanes, more folks might do it.
420 spaces were removed, from Juniper to Adams. No meters. 103 have been replaced and meters expected. They’re out in the street, 11 ft. from the curb which prevents a line of vision for those coming out of the side streets and a small parking lot near 30th. & NP way. The counter is a joke. We have a video of it counting 2 at a time, and nothing passed it. Others have reported a bike with two people on the bike was counted as 2 bikes. Still another had one bike rider but counted it as three bikes. No one has been able to figure out why it jumps to random numbers not based on anything. We are waiting for a court date with the Court of Appeals.
Pat, thank you for the better information. I can add something more about the counter. I re-engaged the person at eco counter to ask why the device that counts bikes and scooters is not on their website. After several emails, it turns out it is not available for sale yet. What we have here is a beta test that San Diego is participating in. That would not necessarily mean the device is faulty, but if the company doesn’t have faith in it yet to advertise and sell it, that says something. After reading what you described here, it appears the device has glitches. Of course, the city did not announce this in the news honestly, there was nothing about this being a test site for the company.
My sister lives in a small house on Ray Street, near Upas. Since the bike lanes were installed on 30th eliminating most street parking, many of the business patrons who used to park on 30th now park on Ray Street or 29th in the residential neighborhood. This includes bar patrons who noisily return to their cars at 2 am. So not only did businesses get screwed but the neighborhood got screwed, too.
I like to patronize restaurants on 30th. Lately I’ve been counting bicycles who use the bike lanes. To say there are very few bikes who use the lane each hour would be the truth, and most of those are the lycra wearing racer types, not commuters.
Taking over neighborhood streets for a very small group of people is wrong, especially when state law was changed to give bicycles equal rights on the road. But to give bikes equal rights on the road and then give them more rights by taking away from one group, vehicle drivers, and giving it to the other, bicyclists, goes against what’s right and what’s equitable.
If bike lanes are proposed in your neighborhood, get involved. Watch the city people like a hawk because they love robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
The # of cyclists going along 30th has increased and I’ve seen it. Still not in droves but it is growing. If I’ve seen it then it’s safe to say so have you. And to say the majority who do ride there are lycra wearing “racer types” is a bit of a stretch and kind of pointless to mention since this is San Diego after all. As I mentioned above, how all this pans out remains to be seen but I personally have enjoyed those lanes being there.
FrankFitz,
Amen Brother. The last sentence of your post is of course correct- however I would personally rephrase it thusly:”Watch the City people like a hawk because they love robbing from the Communities to pay Peter and Paul”!
Are you patronizing the restaurants during peak communing hours?
Thx very much for your work on this important issue, Geoff, and for sharing your research and perspective. It’s important that San Diegans and our elected officials and their staff (who will hopefully read this post and others like it) understand that there are conflicting and credible points of view on the pros and cons of bike lanes.
Thank you, Paul. I like the way you worded it, “that there are conflicting and credible points of view.” That’s what the proponents don’t want to hear.
Very well written article Geoff. another story is the SANDAG TransNet taxes paid by people who buy gasoline, with the promise of improving highways, being used to install many more bike lanes throughout the county. But on the not likely to happen list is a rail from San Ysidro to Sorrento valley. So does Gloria and Ikhrata want to get vehicles off the freeway or not? Gloria is the vice chair of SANDAG now.
Anyone who thinks local government won’t fudge data to achieve political ends should Google “SANDAG scandal.” The 30th St. bike lane counters have been “logging” thousands of riders in recent months. Here in North Park, we have seen maybe a tenth of that. It’s like Richard Pryor said: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? We have to trust but verify anything City Hall tells us, and bike lane counter data can’t be verified.
Is anyone floored to find out the City of SD Bike Csar worked at scandal-ridden SANDAG as an intern?
Well, looking at the numbers must give bike riders a thrill to find out they are about 3% of the ADT of vehicles (2% w/o scooter counts).
For that 2% takes over a third of the street width, the center lane, and most of the parking.
Disgusting discussion regarding people of color and age groups in the area. Does the city need a video to see who makes up that 2%? Maybe they’d find the demographic doesn’t match expectations plus a few people running through the counter multiple times.
“Disgusting discussion regarding people of color and age groups in the area. Does the city need a video to see who makes up that 2%?”
Makes for some good popcorn eatin drama, so there’s that.
Why does the counter extend into the traffic lane? I can’t imagine those who installed it are this dumb, but I’ve been wrong before.
Well, it doesn’t actually, kh. The counters are on both sides of the street within the bike lane boundaries. They look like two small diamonds side by side. The wiring comes from the east side to meet up on the west side and the cabinet feed.
I did ask the company what would happen if cars crossed it, which could easily happen. They said it would not count the car wheels. I have no reason to disbelieve them, but, again, this is a beta test.
Frankly, I think use of numbers from an unproven device that is not out on the market yet, is dishonest without such an accompanying explanation. Or a proper discussion about how to most objectively measure the ridership for the length of the bike lanes.
Maybe it’s made by the same company as the bottle filling stations at the airport that say I diverted 3 plastic water bottles from the landfill while filling my 16oz bottle.
Greenwashing is too prevalent to take anything at face value any more.