Archive for April, 2013

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles V: Gloves Come Off

April 26, 2013

Previously, on Cycling Unbound, I was acccused this for my original anti-e-bike post: “It manages to cram in almost every anti ebike sentiment I have ever heard to the point of being just plain funny. Can anyone else smell the stench of inadequacy from the poster?”

Not by a long, long shot! ūüôā

But I will rise to the challenge now that the guantlet has been thrown down.

I can show you how e-bikes are the ugly duckling of transportation. No matter what the advantages of e-bikes there’s something else that does it better.

Yes, I know it seems unfair to compare every vehicle to e-bikes. Too bad. It’s unfair to lie to people about a shitty form of transportation. It’s unfair to claim to sell these things to “increase mobility in those who are unable to ride a bicycle” then have the bike paths illegally over run by 20 something assholes who can ride a regular bike but choose not to because they have been decieved by unethical advertising. It’s unfair that e-bikes tell people that they will be healthy then they wind up sitting on their ass and getting fat anyway.

Also, e-bike riders think that they are superior to all modes in all ways so they beg me to make this kind of comparison. I oblige.

1. E-bikes are slower than everything else on the road including bicycles:

“…a reasonably fit rider can ride at 50 km/h (30 mph) on flat ground for short periods.” Similarly, a scooter does 30 MPH. Does that make e-bike riders feel “inadequate and jealous”?

E-bikes are throttled, by law, at 20 MPH and are thus slower.

2. Greenwashing. Bicycles shift pollution from the street to “dirty coal” power plants while cyclists generally get their energy from food which they grow themselves using compost from their toilets.

3. No crash protection unlike a car which has air bags and crumple zones.

4. Can’t read while riding an e-bike unlike what I do on buses and on my bicycle on bike paths.

5. No protection from rain.

6. Too fast for bike lanes and they are banned from bike paths.

7. Lack of excercise. Just as bad for you as sitting in a car, but wastes more time on your commute as they are vastly slower than cars thus you waste even more time in transit. Hello obesity.

8. No sex appeal. Cyclists look dorky on our bikes but our bodies are to die for. Motorcyclists are sexy. And you can fuck inside of all but the smallest and messiest of automobiles.

9. Promote bad values.

a. Impatience and hurry sickness. Not all the references on how much faster their commutes are compared with regular bicycles. Note a typical e-bike rider is slow on a regular bike because they are out of shape while average daily cyclists soon adjust to their commute and become stronger and faster every day they ride.

b. Laziness.

c. Dishonesty and cruelty. E-bike riders like to pretend they have a normal bicycle then they laugh at us while they zoom up a hill. I like to mock people in lycra, too, but I don’t go around lying to them. Also, the seldom used peddles are there to pretend that their under-powered e-scooter is a bicycle.

Summary: When it comes to downsides, e-bikes have all the same downsides of bicycles. When it comes to upsides, bicycles have more upsides than e-bikes. Most of the virtues of e-bikes are shared by higher powered motorized vehicles which share little to none of the downsides to e-bikes.

Get a smart car if you don’t want smog (next to you, the power plants still make it to power smart car). If you want to go fast get real motorcycle. If you want to pretend you are riding a bicycle and saving the planet while really riding a dorkier and lower powered motorcycle then get an e-bike.


E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles: IV (In Hawaii)

April 25, 2013

Sometimes, I love Hawaii.

I think that this law should go national.


An electric bicycle in Hawaii is considered an illegal motorized vehicle. However, an electric “Moped” that complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards and which meets the definition of a moped under the statute is legal. All electric bicycles are illegal motorized vehicles.

“Bicycle” [53] means every vehicle “propelled solely by human power” upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any vehicle generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels except a toy bicycle. [53]

“Moped” means a device upon which a person may ride which has two or three wheels in contact with the ground, a motor having a maximum power output capability measured at the motor output shaft, in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers standards, of two horsepower (one thousand four hundred ninety -two watts) or less and, if it is a combustion engine, a maximum piston or rotor displacement of 3.05 cubic inches (fifty cubic centimeters) and which will propel the moped, unassisted, on a level surface at a maximum speed no greater than thirty miles per hour; and a direct or automatic power drive system which requires no clutch or gear shift operation by the moped driver after the drive system is engaged with the power unit.

Under the statute, mopeds must be registered and undergo an annual safety inspection. To be registered under Hawaii law a moped must bear a certification label from the manufacturer stating that it complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). A moped must also possess the following equipment approved by the D.O.T. under Chapter 91: approved braking, fuel, and exhaust system components; approved steering system and handlebars; wheel rims; fenders; a guard or protective covering for drive belts, chains and rotating components; seat or saddle; lamps and reflectors; equipment controls; speedometer; retracting support stand; horn; and identification markings.

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles III: Rebuttal

April 24, 2013

Since people have made a bunch of untrue assumptions about me they seem to deeply care about my person life which is amusing since I’d like to not get too personal and keep the discussion about what name we should call these new things.

1. I wear normal clothes while riding my bicycle.

2. I am inadequate.

3. I don’t own a car.

4. I don’t think that there’s anything morally superior about riding a bicycle, e-scooter or normal style. I don’t have morals.

5. I enjoy cycling, but I don’t race at all. My goal is to be the slowest and happiest cyclist on the road.

6. I have had pleasant, in person encounters with e-scooter riders just as I have pleasant feelings for and friendships with those who drive in Hummers, worship the devil, and I have even befriend a kind country music fan. My personal feelings are beside the point.

7. I don’t think that e-bikes should be illegal or banned, but they should

be classified as motorized scooters because they are. Sure they have pedals, but I can put pedals on my bed, that does not make it a proper bicycle. E-bikes have their place. Hummers have their place. Blah, blah. I’m not judging anyone, but expressing a personal opinion on what the law should be based on common sense, problem solving, and basic English grammar skills. If something has a motor in it, it’s motorized. Simple as that.

Why, based on my opinion of a single name change, are people so vicious? I know this is the nature of the internet, but when it’s connected to e-bikes, it makes all e-bike riders look bad when I feel that they are not. Please prove me right; that e-bike riders are classy people and not cyber bullies.

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles II: Questions

April 22, 2013

I’ve been getting a lot of nonsense regarding this topic. Thus, ifyou want to comment on this post of the prior one on e-bikes erm scooters, please answer a question.


1. My top question remains, why is the name “bicycle” so sacred that has to be connected to a motorized device? You can call my writing notebook many things: a notebook, a moleskin, a hipster laptop, or a cock, and I don’t get angry. Why are e-bike riders so absurdly touchy when it comes to a single name?


2. If an e-bike is a bike, what if I connect a combustion engine to my bicycle. Is it still a bicycle? Why? Why is it not a motorcycle?


3. If you answered “top speed” for #2 then what if my car breaks to the point where I can only do 20 MPH in it. Is my car now a bicycle? If not, why?


4. If the car from #3 is not a bicycle, if I add peddles, is it now a bicycle? If not, why not?


5. Why stop e-bikes at 20 MPH when they can go much faster? So we can pretend that they are bicycles?


6. If e-bikes are so awesome, what is your feeling, as an e-bike rider, towards non-e-bike riders? I mean aside from all the name calling that I got from another forum. I am hoping that someone with more character will answer to give me some insight.


7. Back to speed limitations. If you answered that a bicycle is “limited to 20 MPH” then does a bicycle become not a bicycle when you got 21 MPH on a normal bicycle? If not, why not?


8. If I ride a motorcycle, am I welcome in e-bike rides? If not, why not? Sure I can go a little bit faster with less effort, but is that not the same difference between an e-bike and normal bicycle?


9. On the forums why was it wrongly assumed that I was an athlete when I am not? Are you saying that it’s stupid to ride a normal bicycle for commuting? Or was there another reason that “lycra” was tossed around a lot when I don’t wear it?


10. I realize that riding an e-scooter has many benefits. However, so does regular cycling. Aside from the excercise which makes me happy, I like the relative quiet of dedicated bicycle paths. Does your right to ride on a motorized vehicle trump my right to peace and calm for a little while? If this is true can’t we apply this same logic and say that we should both allow regular motor vehicles on bicycle paths?


11. Can I ride my smart car in bike lanes, shoulders, and dedicated bicycle paths? What if I attach peddles and promise to only ride 20 MPH or less?


CEQA Debate: Is CEQA Bad for Bikes: As It’s Read Now, Yes!

April 19, 2013

Let’s start it up!

I have just started reading about CEQA. I have read the FAQ as well as a single piece of case law. Now, I see another view, and all ready I’m pissed.

I know I need to read more. Let’s get that out of the way, but this seems like we are speaking vaguely to avoid thinking too clearly and this is bad for the law, bad for cycling, and bad for California.

So says Ben Christopher:

“To back up, CEQA is the 1970 state environmental protection law which says that any project built, funded, or approved by a government body in California needs to pass ecological muster.”

I don’t know what “ecological muster” means. But it’s vague and sloppy.

Here’s a quote from the law:

“(1) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR.” [Environmental Impact Report] []

The key word to this law is IF as well as SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. There are many, many projects which don’t fall under this.

Ben continues:

“Whether it’s major city development projects, state high-speed railway plans or that tool shed you want to build in your backyard, the relevant agency has to ask whether “there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects” before signing off on anything.”

The court disagrees on this:

“On the other hand, common sense tells us that the majority of private projects for which a government permit or similar entitlement is necessary are minor in scope — e.g., relating only to the construction, improvement, or operation of an individual dwelling or small business — and hence, in the absence of unusual circumstances, have little or no effect on the public environment. Such projects, accordingly, may be approved exactly as before the enactment of the EQA.”

Again, my beef isn’t that my interpretation or Ben’s is correct, but rather both of us need to up our game to READ MORE. I feel that he was reading the law in an overly broad way which did not take into account case law, context, nor even common sense.

Ben continues:

“If a project has been approved (or exempted from evaluation completely) without the proper once-over, the public has the right to challenge that review. So far, this is all irrefutably good stuff.”

No, it’s not irrefutable and it’s not all good. When environmental law is allowed to be abused to create more environmentally hazardous and more dangerous streets, we all lose.

As I stated before, the notion of legislative intent is one important factor that’s often left out of modern interpretations of CEQA. The point isn’t to veto pro-environmental projects nor is to create unnecessary paperwork. The point of the EIR is a way to document that the project is environmentally sound. The paper work and the potential abuse does nothing on its own to help the environment.

“I wade into the ongoing debate over CEQA, with much unease.”

And I jump into it like a fish in water.

“For starters, the minute that I start to explain that CEQA stands for the California Environmental Quality Act and that San Francisco City Hall’s administration of that particular law is the subject of a long-running and heated political discussion, particularly over the question of which municipal body gets to adjudicate which appeal and in regard to the timing of the petition process and … never mind, you’ve probably already hit the back button.”

There are good reasons for this. This is because some well meaning people are getting so tied up in the minutia of the law they don’t see the bigger picture. But worse is that people who reflexively and irrationally hate bicycles and other green development are deliberately abusing and perverting the process which is intended to protect the environment in order to gum up obvious safety and environmental improvements.


“For those of you still with me, here’s the other reason I worry about writing this: Those who follow this issue seem to follow it very closely and with a level of vociferous conviction that makes my equivocating self a little nervous, because as a cyclist and a citizen, I can sympathize with both sides of this argument.”

That’s the problem, the two sides you believe in don’t exist. Those who care for the environment want bicycle infrastructure. Full stop. Those who don’t care about the environment wish for a broad reading of CEQA which will make things tough for environmentalists and cyclists. Those are the two sides.

“Of course, the Coalition’s beef with the local CEQA process dates back to 2005 when, after the City was all set to move forward with its new city-wide Bicycle Plan, the proposal was stopped by CEQA appeal by the misanthropically tenacious Rob Anderson. The City, Anderson argued, had not properly vetted the bike plan’s impact on transit and overall traffic congestion.”

Only in a fuzzy headed world of today would it not be obvious that more people on bicycles means less people on freeways and trains which helps all of us. These facts have been proven over and over again and are common sense to those of us who don’t hate bikes.

“Wiener’s solution: Once a project is given a green stamp of approval by the Planning Department, a would-be challenger only has 30 days to file an appeal. In other words, an appeal can’t be filed on a project after the backhoe’s been rented. Also, in those cases where the Board has to approve a municipal project (say, a new bike path), under the proposed law, a majority “Aye” vote would count as both an approval of the project itself and as an affirmation of its environmental soundness.”

Sigh. If we had more honest people or better read advocates to begin with, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.

This is a messed up solution to a messed up problem.


That’s an interpretation of the law that some people have come up with including SF’s City Hall. That’s a shame, but it’s not everyone’s reading of the law. By taking “both sides” you are weakening the cyclist’s side.

“The stated goal of Wiener’s bill, then, is to limit redundant appeals and restrict the ability of obstructionists to repeatedly obstruct. In the last few weeks, other examples of lone, disgruntled NIMBYs tying up perfectly good and green projects under the guise of environmental concern have made the rounds in the media to highlight the need for reform.”

Why not use common sense to explain to the court that the intent of CEQA is to help the environment?

“”There are developers out there who are going to push this through to bypass the environmental analysis process and that is not good for anyone,” she said. In other words, weakening the appeals process is a double-edged sword. Limit the ability to hold up bike path construction and you limit the ability to hold up ill-conceived developments across the city.”

And I thought that one of the original points of NEPA and CEQA was to preserve open space.


“”I’m a bicyclist. I don’t have a car. I’m a member of the Coalition,” said Vaughan. “But from my point of view, it’s good to fully assess any plan.””

For what? Why do people think that they need to micro-manage everything? I say if it’s in the city limits, build it!

If it’s a coal plant or a factory that will definitely have “significant environmental damage” remember this? This is the prerequisite for decided whether we need an EIR or not. Otherwise, build it and get out of their way.

“Certainly, I do understand the hesitancy to tinker with the administration of a long established environmental law. And while I don’t like the fact that someone can hold the city’s bike lanes hostage for almost half a decade, I also recognize that the next time a delay tactic is employed against a major project, it might be against one that I’m less partial to.”

Notice that we don’t have a single example. We need to be a bit more concrete here, Ben.

“That said, I am not so convinced that Wiener’s reform would lead to a pandemic of skyscraper rush jobs.”

Yeah, because if you built a sky scraper in a big city that would be a nightmare.

I don’t get where they get these people who insist on living in one of the coolest cities in the US, which is so cool because people have been allowed to dream big and build big, and now they want to grind that process to a halt. I just don’t get it.

There are shit hole places where they will NEVER build a skyscraper. If skyscrapers are such a problem, we can move there.

Manhattan is one of the most environmentally efficient places in the country.

It seems that Ben and the Sierra Club are confusing awesome urbanism with environmental damage.

CEQA: Older Case Law Suggests that CEQA Should Not Prohibit Cycling

April 18, 2013

I continue to read this case study from 1972, and it’s like a time machine to back when people were sane. If you talk to young children, you get a sense of fairness. But soon, I think we are bombarded by such right wing dogma, pseudoscience, aspirational TV, narcissistic spirituality, and other kinds of nonsense which warps our sense of reality. It seems that in the early 70’s there was less of this insanity.

Like when I read sustainable safety literature, I get a deep sense of clear headed reason. To me, it’s very comforting and calming.

This is unlike most cycling news I read these days, even from people whom I agree with, where I get a sense of anxiety and discomfort. I have read that the use of fear laden words sky rocketed somewhere around 1980. I believe this.

Not that I would know. I’m not a lawyer. I’m sure that things have changed over time, and I’m not sure how much this applies to now. Thus, I call this time period “CEQA: The Early Years.”

“Once a particular legislative intent has been ascertained, it must be given effect “‘even though it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute.'” (Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1 (1944) 24 Cal.2d 796, 802 [151 P.2d 505, 157 A.L.R. 324].) As we stated nearly a half century ago in In re Haines (1925) 195 Cal. 605, 613 [234 P. 883]: “‘The mere literal construction of a section in a statute ought not to prevail if it is opposed to the intention of the legislature apparent by the statute; and if the words are sufficiently flexible to admit of some other construction it is to be adopted to effectuate that intention. The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act.'”

The intent of CEQA is to help the environment. Getting more people cycling will help the environment. Thus the intent of CEQA is to INCREASE CYCLING. Anything cycling infrastructure, that follows all other regulations, should be except from CEQA.

This is really common sense.

People who say otherwise either don’t have a clue or don’t like bicycles. It’s as simple as that.

To stop traffic calming and the building of pedestrian and cycling facilities due to CEQA renders the actual law meaningless. Again, since this is so obvious, I believe that this is the intent of those who seek to abuse this law. I am speculating, but I feel that people must get a malicious thrill by damaging the environment by using the law intended to protect the environment.

Next, we deal with the fact that cycling infrastructure can be built only if environmental impact reports are filed. However,

“The use of these [environmental impact] reports by the planning agencies mentioned in Government Code section 65402 is secondary to the principal purpose of section 21151, which is to compel local governments to study and record the environmental implications of proposed activities before they are acted upon. This broad purpose cannot be frustrated by procedural details surrounding filing of the reports.”

Thus, the benefit that people cycling gives to the environment should not be frustrated by extra paper work. There’s no way someone who wrote this law would agree with that.

Another reason that environmental impart reports [EIRS] are not necessary is because cycling does not significantly negatively harm the enivornment. In fact, it helps the environment when people do it in lie of motoring.

Again, the older court agrees:

“”We emphasize that by the terms of the act an environmental impact report is required only for a project “which may have a significant effect on the environment”

Also, in the “early CEQA years” they did not expect EVERY SINGLE BIKE LANE TO GO BEFORE CEQA:

“For the reasons given above, however, we expect that the majority of the private projects for which governmental approval will be sought in the future will present no risk of significant environmental effect and therefore will not require impact reports in any event.”

I know this says private project, but I think that they meant that this would apply to government projects as well in light of the court’s interpretation of the words “significant effect to the environment.”


What is CEQA?

April 16, 2013

CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act, is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.

In my words this is a good idea which has been built into a terrible law. I don’t think we should get rid of the law, but it needs to be reformed.

Apparantly there’s a LOS (level of service) for CEQA:

“Ironically, environmental quality considerations, in the form of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, are often the biggest obstacles to making quality-of-life improvements to city streets, not because pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements contribute to air / noise / water pollution (they don’t), but because taking pavement away from private motorcars can potentially diminish the “Level of Service” (LOS) experienced by auto drivers below a failing-grade threshold of convenience.”

“Level-of-Service A can describe free-flow operations. Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and all motorists have complete mobility between lanes.” []

Yes, the state of CA seems to be insane enough to have determined that REDUCING TRAFFIC SPEED IS A NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT! Apparently, speeding cars are good for the environment.

Like it or not, this is the law, right now.

There are attempts to reform this stupid law:

“This bill would, until January 1, 2018, exempt from CEQA the restriping of streets and highways for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area that is consistent with a prepared bicycle transportation plan.” []

The fact that this is even a notion to begin with shows how utterly asleep at the wheel our silly Quislings have been.

While they pontificated about how far we need to be from the side of the road, the government was redefining negative impacts to walking and cycling as good for the environment.

There is much, much more to this massive and complex law, but this is the tip of the iceberg on why this law needs to be reformed. It also demonstrates how auto-centricity corrupts even the best of laws. Finally, it also shows how raising the flag of environmentalism can be used as a ploy to bicycle haters (you know who you are) to squash infrastructure for cyclists.

Tyrrany of the Majority Cycling

April 15, 2013

“The phrase “tyranny of the majority” (or “tyranny of the masses”), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.”

I don’t know if this applies to cycling: making the world a living hell and kill a few hundred people a year, but I personally think that it applies.

“Ayn Rand, Objectivist philosopher and novelist, wrote against such tyranny, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

Thus, I don’t think that any serious conservative especially the Randian should be against bike lanes and bicycle parking. After all, as I said before, bicycle infrastructure is the state’s way of conferring both protection and legitimacy to cycling. Thus, no infrastructure, no right to cycle. Which means that no bicycle infrastructure is a form of Motoring Tyrrany.

Here’s some criticism:

“Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a process studied in public choice theory.”

Yes! This is our dream. Dominate the political process and in the process save lives, create quieter communities, and happier people. Tyrrany of the safe and healthy!

CABO Fight!!

April 12, 2013

I know I’m going to hell for this! ūüôā

Below is a series of emails on the CABO mailing list.

But first here’s a photo of some of the better known vehicular cyclists:


They recently had a conference but didn’t invite me! I would have gone as an “online journalist”. Haha.!topic/caboforum/i-ByCW0xur4
Paul Wendt
Apr 5

Can all those parties who are arguing PLEASE be respectful of each other?

There have been some excellent comments posted here by John Forester, Dan
Gutierrez, and numerous others.

I really don’t care about who’s right on what I consider hair-splitting.

I would appreciate it if people could be respectful of each other when
discussing these issues on this list.

All of the above have contributed greatly…and it would be nice if we
could all respect each other.

Paul Wendt
John Forester
Apr 6
This is not hair-splitting; the discussion concerns the characteristics
of leadership, good and bad, which is of great importance to the welfare
of CABO. It is also of great importance to the welfare of the new
organization being created under the slogan of I Am Traffic. Less than
two months ago, in the email discussions of that group, Gutierrez was
involved in a very similar exchange concerning the meaning of the words
that he had written, which resulted in his public expressions of anger
such as we have read in the CABO list. When I suggested to him that we
conduct a private examination of the grammar of his sentence, to show
that the meaning transmitted to other readers was not what he had
intended (giving him the benefit of the doubt about motive), he
haughtily and publicly, refused.

In this discussion, I informed Gutierrez that “It has been commonly
argued in many places for many years that these exceptions were enacted
for the benefit of cyclists.” His immediate reply was: “What does this
have to do with me?” I was obviously making no claim that he was
responsible for making that argument. But he should have known that his
unqualified statement that these exceptions were written by [bicycle]
advocates provides ammunition for those making that argument. Any leader
of an organization with a controversial agenda (as both CABO and I Am
Traffic are) needs to understand the social milieu in which that
organization has to operate, and to compose his statements so that they
both reflect his views and prevent misleading interpretations by others.
Gutierez’s forceful defense of his statement: “Au contraire, the words I
originally wrote were factually correct. ¬†Advocates did add the words,”
again shows that he fails to understand the difference between specific
accuracy and the social context in which those words operate.

I repeat: this is not hairsplitting. It is discussing the
characteristics required for good leadership of an organization that has
to operate in a context that makes it controversial. In that respect,
Gutierrez’s words and actions give him a failing grade.
– show quoted text –

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 ¬† ¬†fore…
Dan Gutierrez, LCI #962, CABO D7 Director
Apr 6
I simply don’t care what you think. ¬†That you imagine yourself as an arbiter
or judge of leadership and social skills is fascinating from a purely
psychological standpoint, given your long history of alienation and
polarization within the bicycling advocacy community and your single handed
poisoning of the term “vehicular cycling”, but none of makes any difference
to me.  That you see my disagreement as anger which justifies personal
attacks from you is simply a tantrum on your part and a rather poor attempt
at character assassination.  I will be adding your email to my delete list,
since you’ve made it clear that you seek to smear, and I’ve had my lifetime
fill of your personal invective.  This is the last time I will respond to
you on the CABO Forum list.

– Dan –
– show quoted text –

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“CABOforum” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to caboforum+…
To post to this group, send email to cabo…
Visit this group at
For more options, visit
Apr 6
I agree with John.

I have met Dan.  A leader listens and takes notes about ideas.  Some are
great, some are so-so, and some don’t work. ¬†That is being a team member and
a team leader.

Dan listens and then corrects your grammar.  Notes are never taken.

This is not a leader.  This is a dictator.  I, too, give Dan a failing grade
as a leader. – Frank

—–Original Message—–
From: cabo… [mailto:cabo…] On
Behalf Of John Forester
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:49 AM
To: cabo…
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] He said/she said, and mudslinging…can’t we all
just get along?

– show quoted text –
– show quoted text –
Apr 6

You accuse John of “personal invective”. ¬†Who is more at that than YOU?! ¬†If
there is a poster child for “invective’, your picture would be there. ¬†You
are the Prince of “Invective” (and I am using your word here and there is no
way you can dispute that you used that word.).  There is no person better at
“invective” than Dan Gutierrez.

Your mind is sharp and your tongue is sharp.  Your ability to be the
leadership of CABO is severely lacking.

When you tell a long standing member of CABO that you “simply don’t care”
about his opinion, you are deferring long standing standards to your own

I “simply don’t care” about you (your words and quoted). ¬†You are CABO
baggage and will cause the end of CABO.

Is that your mission.  If so, you are doing a fine job.

I am jumping to “I am Traffic” and I hope you will not do this.

I like them.  We really do not need a bully in this, which is what you are.

Have a nice life and good luck to what you think you are adding to
bicycling, although you are sadly misdirected in your efforts.

You are a piece of Work (I substituted Work for what I was thinking that
starts with “S”.)

I am done with CABO.  You put the lid on it for me.

I have other and more positive Forums to be part of.

I am for the positive part of cycling and forwarding it to the Cities that I
deal with. – Frank

—–Original Message—–
From: cabo… [mailto:cabo…] On
– show quoted text –
Donald Shupp
Apr 6

You’re absolutely right, although I feel that John was perfectly in the clear for defending himself. He showed great restraint in not calling Dan an ass, as much as he may have felt like it. That guy can block all of us from his discussion if he chooses, because when the debate gets too warm for him to handle, that’s exactly what happens.

Donald Shupp
– show quoted text –
Pete van Nuys
8:33 AM (6 hours ago)
This is embarrassing.

—–Original Message—–
From: cabo… [mailto:cabo…] On
Behalf Of Dan Gutierrez
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:57 AM
To: fore…; cabo…
‚ÄĘ show quoted text –

Broken Sidewalk Up North

April 11, 2013!topic/san-diego-bicyclist-forum/EdiJZ5UTNiQ

“To review: A construction project in La Jolla on Torrey Pines Rd between Prospect Place and Princess St/Hillside Drive has caused typical removal of bike lanes and traffic lane narrowing. A woman emailed the city complaining that while bicycling there cars bore down on her, and requested signage telling cyclists to use the sidewalk. Only one side of the road has a sidewalk, the sidewalk is unusually narrow, is full of hazards, including poles and driveways, and… it’s a sidewalk. Never-the-less, the city complied and installed signs telling cyclists to use the one narrow sidewalk in both directions. I couldn’t believe. The sign pictured below says:


Last week the City seemed receptive on the phone to my suggestion that they replace their illegal regulatory sign with a standard BMUFL sign, but today I received a disturbing email reply. I’m copying the whole thing below, but essentially they’re saying they did this to avoid posting an MUTCD R5-6 (“NO BICYCLES”) sign, because they had no other option.

The normal posted speed limit here is 35 mph, but through the construction zone it’s 25 mph.
Below the copy of their “findings”, is a draft response from me. Any comments, suggestions, corrections? Thanks!”

My response:

Another idea is that the city could allow advocates to build a better sidewalk.

They want 2 way traffic on a narrow sidewalk. That does sound stupid and dangerous. The sidewalk sounds old. The city is beyond broke (in their words) for bicycles.

Why not let the city get out of the way and accept a “donation” of a cycle track?

They were going to remake the entire Balboa Park in Jacob’s image around a few parking spaces. Why not take a smaller check (free materials and labor) to let the sidewalk be fixed? The cycle track could be proof of concept.

Plus, the city all ready faces “liability” for having dangerous and inadequate facilities.