Before the L.A. City Council considers lifting the ban on bicycles on trains during rush hours, perhaps they should stop wasting time and observe that not only do such rules get ignored but that the recent ruling to take out seats for cyclists too often does not work, as this video clearly exhibits.
Should not this cyclist be with his bike in the area where two seats were removed, rather than sitting in the seat reserved for handicapped straphangers?
What needs to be done is far more than what Los Angeles councilmembers appear willing to do. Unenforced laws that are already on the books and councilmembers whose idea of job security is illustrated by appeasing the burgeoning contingent of bicycle riders (a contingent that seems to ready to define itself as "oppressed" and "second-class citizens"—as if they have suffered hundreds of years of being beaten down for a physical characteristic they can never escape, when all they need do is dismount a bicycle to no longer be harassed by the man) is what appears to be driving this strange discussion.
-BusTard
UPDATE:
Hi there, while I can't support your anti-cyclist view points, I can agree with you on one important point: Cyclists need to be more courteous on public transit.
Here's an un-ordered list of bothersome things I've seen cyclists doing in my 10 years on MTA:
-Holding their bikes on the escalators so no-one can go past them
-bumping into people on trains
-blocking the exits/entrances on trains
-generally not being aware of their surroundings (like when a door they are blocking is about to open up)
-riding on the platform
-entering trains, cars, or parts of cars that are too crowded
OK. I think that the first thing that is necessary is that cyclists learn how to be courteous riders, so they don’t continue these bad behaviors and any others I might have left out.
The MTA always seems to want to restrict cyclists by numbers: either time of day, or riders per car. But that's ridiculous because sometimes trains have room during peak hours and sometimes more bikes can comfortably fit in a train than allowed by the proposed new rules. Having more aggressive enforcement and ticketing rude cyclists might work better than making up arbitrary number quotas that unfairly penalize polite cyclists (there are some--I'm one).
Now, you bring up a good point, BusTard: some cyclists--especially the some of the snarky midnight ridazz, are 'choice' MTA riders, meaning if the going gets tough, they can just get back in their cars. Not to mention that they've got their own form of transportation. But I want to invite you to look at cyclists in another way. They are using the limited transit system to make trips that could otherwise only be completed by adding hours and many transfers by normal riders. They are essentially expanding the capacity of MTA and staying off the smaller bus lines (like MTA 600-series lines) which circulate through predominantly poor neighborhoods and serve people who have no other way of getting around.
The one point you make that I take issue with is that cyclists should stay off of busses and trains and leave them to those people who have no other choice. While I agree that cyclists can just ride their bike instead of crowding up transit, it's unfair to assume that they can just get in a car. We have a large contingent of who I call ‘invisible’ cyclists—people who can’t make their work commute pencil out without taking a bike, and who don’t know the rules of courtesy—sometimes these people can’t read English, or sometimes they can’t even read.
Your writing reflects a trend I've noticed in cutting-edge transit advocacy such as this blog and the Bus Riders Union. You seem to be saying that public transit is for the poor, the less mobile or 'handicapped', the brown, and the otherwise disenfranchised, and that everyone else should get the heck off. I disagree--sometime in the 1940s, as the USA got way-y-y-y too into cars as a primary mode of transportation, a decision was made to turn public transit into a social service, because “why would anyone want to be on the bus?”. Well if you travel on public transit in other cities, you see professionals, service employees, people on SSI, and kids all riding together. Seattle is a good example. I think that a key to having a more healthy MTA in LA is to encourage choice riders because they broaden the base and they can leverage more support for improvements. Let's set aside our differences for later and join to advocate for improvements we both want, starting with cyclists being more polite and respectful on the train.
Posted by: alexkenefick | 07/12/2009 at 01:26 PM
Alex thanks for sharing your opinion. I would like to say that this is not an advocacy blog. We are not transit advocates. This is an editorial based blog that uses transit as a vehicle to talk about issues from the working class perspective.
We're not connected to any political group, we have no political agenda, we are simply observing and documenting what we see.
"We have a large contingent of who I call ‘invisible’ cyclists—people who can’t make their work commute pencil out without taking a bike, and who don’t know the rules of courtesy—sometimes these people can’t read English, or sometimes they can’t even read." Alex
On the Blue Line I often witness the invisible riders, which is why I don't like these hardcore rules in regards to cyclist. I think the person who it's going to hurt the most will be these invisible riders, but in general as far as courtesy these riders are way more courtesy. I don't think it's a cultural thing or a biological thing but a class thing. If from birth you have to share space with people you're going to be alot more courtesy than someone who started riding their bike six months ago. I think alot of more middle class riders truly have no idea that they are being rude and bumping into people and taking up space. When I initially started taking public transit even just walking I was being rude. I would sit in the front of the bus. Ask the driver stupid questions. Be in the way at the wrong time, but that happened because I was used to being in a car.
When you're of the lower class you bump someone you will get your ass kicked, so you're way more mindful of people's personal space.
I am not going to speak for BusTard, but in general the problem I have with not just the MTA, but the LAPD, the school system etc is that when working class poor people of color ask for things nothing gets done, but when white middle class guys ask for something it gets done.
On the Blue Line a man was killed owing to no safety barriers, even though it was pointed out that the Blue Line was the most dangerous rail in the nation. Nothing was done to fix it. On the other hand a largely white and largely middle class and largey male contingent of riders ask for seats to be removed for their bikes and it's done in a matter of weeks.
And that's great that demographic has that kind of power, but why can't anyone else have any power? Why can't statements like, "We're dying" make public agencies move to give the working classes the same rights and comforts as the middle clas?
I agree that the MTA should be for everyone, but if the MTA had listened to working class people who asked for clean public transit, safe public transit, timely public transit then the choice riders would be there and would stay there, but for some odd reason the MTA only listens (ok they only listen a little) but at least the pretend to respect the cyclist demographic.
I don't want them to stop listening to the cyclists, but I want the MTA to listen to everyone equally and they do not do that, if they did the Blue Line wouldn't be the most deadly train in the nation.
I mean really how much does barriers cost and why did the Blue Line get them after the Red Line, Gold Line, Green Line and after they had taken our the seats for the cyclists. What do you think is more important? People dying or people being able to fit their bike on a train?
Browne
Posted by: browne | 07/12/2009 at 06:20 PM
BusTard: The fact that you have documented one person who is not following the letter of the law does not mean the laws/rules are ill-conceived. There are plenty of cyclists who DO follow the rules.
But I will point out, the individual in the video you have shown is not actually causing any problems for anyone is he? It's not as if there is a handicap person who is inconvenienced by his sitting there. Who's to say he wouldn't move for an elderly or handicapped strap hanger? I have seen several cases where a cyclist was sitting with a bike in the same seat you show, and then moved when an elderly or handicapped person came aboard.
Posted by: David Galvan | 07/13/2009 at 10:07 AM
I think you're being a little harsh there Randall, but I get where you're coming from. As a regular cyclist on L.A's streets many times I've been confronted with the attitudes and misperceptions of my motorists, pedestrians, transit officials and law enforcement that have left me feeling disctinctly second-class, and it can certainly be oppressive. But I don't consider myself oppressed. I'm fortunate to be able to bike by choice and not necessity, but it's important to keep in mind there is a vast population of under-represented cyclists who don't have that option and are indeed looked down upon.
My personal response is to represent. To be one of those responsible and respectful cyclists. I stop at red lights where other cyclists unrepentantly roll them. I'm not at all against rolling a stop sign across an empty intersection, but I'll readily yield the right of way to vehicles or pedestrians I encounter. Barring debris or damaged pavement that pushes me into traffic lanes, I'll even ride in the door zone or close to the curb to ensure I'm not inhibiting the traffic flow. And on trains, I stand with my bike in the designated areas and do my best to minimize the impact I have on my fellow passengers.
I like that the MTA has taken this baby step to accommodate cyclists on their rail lines, but like you I don't want it to be to the detriment of other passengers. it's a shame the MTA is thinking inside the boxcar, so to speak. Just as buses have drop-down devices outside to handle up to two bikes, I wonder if there isn't some way to adapt such mechanisms to the sides of the rail cars.
Posted by: Will Campbell | 07/13/2009 at 11:49 AM
In fact, Will, the Zahnradbahn rail cars have a caddy in front of the trains that hold several bicycles. Perhaps that is an option on the subway, at least?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariaiop/2671620303/
Posted by: ubrayj02 | 07/14/2009 at 12:04 AM
Will and Alex,
What you detail is well put, and that is what I ask. I do not want bicyclists to be kept from the trains, nor do I wish to be thought of as a spokesperson for the BRU (a transit advocate—which the Bus Bench is not—that seems to want the busses only for they and the working class). I want public transit in L.A. to expand to include all, and I wish more folk would ride. But just as I desire Metro to accommodate the burgeoning swell of riders, so too do I wish the growing contingent of bike riders on trains to understand that they essentially take up the space of three people, and that they would cause less animosity were they to observe the economy of people moving round them. Moreover, as the seats have been removed to accommodate those with bikes, I wish such strap-hangers would use them. I recommend that bicyclists look to Will as a model, because he is a great guy and even puts up with me (no mean feat, that!).
David, my point was made and it seemed you missed it: the seats taken out for the exclusive sake of those with bicycles. Since four fewer seats are available on some Red Line cars, the least those with bicycles might do is use the space that was created for them by certain councilmembers. And while we are on minor points, how about that photo you recently posted on a Streetsblog post regarding the lifting of the bike ban? I have a number of photos where unattended bikes are parked like that on platforms. (And yes, I understand you did that for the sake of the photo, but it is uncanny.) And as it is though that the above video was an anomaly, I posted a video from Monday morning rush hour that I captured prior to the comment about such a scene being merely "one person who is not following the letter of the law." Granted, not all with bikes are like this, but it happens too frequently. It would be nice if those with bicycles who do make a pain of their presence, would understand how to be a part of the flow rather than impeding it.
Ubrayj02, that is a great idea. I had sketched a similar idea whereby one's Metro card allowed such a hatch to be accessed in the side of a train car (to store bikes and the card part to prevent theft). Unfortunately, Metro has gone the other way with the new AnsaldoBreda cars, which is a big problem for anyone with a pram, bike or more than two bags of groceries.
Posted by: Randall BusTard | 07/14/2009 at 07:58 AM
This issue deserves a public debate!
Randall, if you're available anytime this month or next - would you like to be the ANti-bike on rail voice at my bike shop?
Anyone else, would you care to be the pro-bike on rail voice?
Throwdown, verbal cage match, debate at Flying PIgeon LA anyone?
Posted by: ubrayj02 | 07/14/2009 at 11:13 AM
How about some time in August?
I will come armed with a wiffle bat and bicycle helmet in case I lose and pursue a more primal avenue for victory!
Posted by: Randall BusTard | 07/14/2009 at 02:55 PM
@Randall: Remember that you are probably far better informed about the current MTA rules than most users. The real problem here is informing the public about the rules. As Lynne Goldsmith said in a recent interview (don't have the URL handy, but it was about the revisions to the bikes on trains rules), there is currently no signage directing cyclists to the handicap open areas intended for their use. All that's there is a graphic of a wheelchair. Given the lack of signage, most people probably don't even know that section is for cyclists.
So, what if I'm the guy in your second video. I walk onto the train with my bike. Say, look at that open area! Oh wait, that's for people in wheelchairs. Better leave that space open in case someone gets on with a wheel chair. I'll just hang out in this central space surrounding the vertical pole, so that I can easily get out of people's way and I'm not blocking anyone's motion. Seems reasonable enough to me.
Or let's take the guy in your first video: Maybe he also doesn't know that the open area is for cyclists to stand with their bikes, and he wants to minimize the imposition of his bike on others, so he sits in the standalone single chair (which as you said, is priority for elderly and handicap people). Other than the fact that he is sitting down, there's not much difference between him being in that chair (which is priority for handicap people) or being in the open area (which is ALSO priority for handicap people). Either way, he'd be in an area intended to accommodate handicapped people, so the primary goal should be to reduce his impact on others.
I haven't seen any signage at the metro stations discussing rules for cyclists, and I figure most people would find out about this stuff on the internet, but not everyone checks the MTA websites as often as we do. I hope that, with the new rules, comes a greater effort to inform cyclists of where they should be.
Posted by: David Galvan | 07/15/2009 at 05:10 PM
I agree with you on the signs, David. Metro has the capability to post signs (two examples are found in the "preaching to the choir" campaign—those signs in the stations and on busses to ride Metro, especially the giant Metro logos, are a plain waste—and the quick responce to the swine flu) and should do so with respect to the recently removed seats being for the sake of bikes as well as wheelchairs on trains.
Posted by: Randall BusTard | 07/16/2009 at 06:02 AM