To be honest, I think it’s all about money. I’ve seen it myself in Long Beach, where it seems like this kind of infrastructure is accepted by city council and those who have stake in development see it as, well, an opportunity for development money. Their eyes kind of glaze over when money involves. If it doesn’t involve money, well, why be involved at all? At city council I keep pointing out that the better cheaper way is always to implement various tactics to lower motorist speeds (as in, try to make sure everyone actually goes at the posted/legal speed limit!!), or try to actually enforce (Long Beach I believe will be/is one of the pilot cities for the recent speed camera law that passed finally last year—thanks to SAFE) instead of trying to build more infrastructure, but what good is anything if developers don’t make some money? Most of bike lanes, protected or not, are so narrow anyway, for practical/safe use, but as everyone here is chiming in people who design these things also appear not to really use any of the roads for cycling or walking, just driving, driving, driving. So there’s a gap there as well: motives and understanding.
Cassady Sakura Davidson, Esq.
Davidson Bike Law
21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500
Torrance, CA 90503
(310) 503-8805 PHONE
(310) 349-3335 FAX
--
This message may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. The receipt of this email or any documents attached to it do not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm. If you are not the named addressee you should not disclose, disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.