LAist: Pasadena Abandons Cycling Prohibition

guest

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:49:11 -0800

Newgirl has a valid question. Yes, the issue is whether cyclists should ride more than two abreast--two riders side by side. Why do cyclists need to ride more than two abreast? It's not so much a matter of need as it is as issue of what happens as a practical response to the environment. Cyclists form what is called a "peloton" as a means of gaining efficiency. While it may seem inconvenient to motorists for cyclists to travel in a 100+ member group, limiting those 100 or more riders to riding 2x2 would create a line of cyclists more than 300 feet long. That would be much more frustrating to motorists trying to execute a turn of any sort; it would be tantamount to deciding whether to try to pass the train or wait for it--turning through the peloton would endanger the lives of many cyclists. Given that a peloton passes in seconds due to its efficiency (riders take turns at the front), keeping the group bunched up truly works better. This isn't to say some cyclists haven't done stupid or inconsiderate moves. There are bad eggs in every bunch. There are, however, a number of thoughtful and considerate cyclists who try to keep the ride safe for every user group at the Rose Bowl. It might be helpful to note that this sort of training can't be performed just anywhere and by riding at the Rose Bowl, cyclists are attempting to stay out of the primary rush-hour commuter traffic in Pasadena. The training gained there has helped Pasadena to produce national champion athletes.

guest

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:10:34 -0800

Why single out cyclists. If you are going to make a rule, how about, No rollerbladers in groups larger then 2, no walkers/runners no larger then 2, No motorcyclist in groups larger then 2, no groups of cars that are larger then 2. The fault in the logic is that you single out a single group. Either Apply it to everyone or nobody. C U at Crit mass

guest

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:17:38 -0800

I'm with guest 3. I don't see why it's a problem for cyclists to ride 2 abreast. Why do more people than that need to ride abreast? To take up the entire road? I am assuming here that abreast means next to each other....is there some other meaning I'm unaware of? I agree that more than 2 cyclists should be allowed on the road at once, I just don't think they need to take up more than the width of 2 cyclists in a roadway. I am sure I will be berated for posting as a guest, so call me "newgirl."

guest

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:50:19 -0800

It's a civil right to purposely crowd the street so that others cannot use it? Me thinks that the cyclists are impinging on the civil rights of the other vehicles and/or pedestrians.

Miss Havisham

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:21:24 -0800

Viva la mooseknuckle e cameltoes! This law would not hold. I am so pleeeeezed.

bigm601

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:44:46 -0800

that has to be a mistake. the hordes of vicious, cruel cyclists that will now take to the streets will frighten motorists and lower property values... i have ridden the rose bowl on tuesdays and thursdays for years and loved it. i am glad it will still be a choice. however, it is a public street and not a closed circuit criterium which is what most hardcore cyclists seem to think. i am tired of being yelled at by pasadena area homeowners for even riding solo in their "private" neighborhoods. who do they think they are? when i heard of this proposed ordinance i felt it has no chance of being overturned. i am glad i was wrong! i just hope people realize how precarious their freedom of choice can be.