I spoke yesterday at City Council to voice my opinion for bike lanes, not just for the sake of cyclists, but for the safety benefits for pedestrians and drivers as well. I didn’t speak as eloquently as others, but I gave it my best.
Cedillo’s response was the type of insult that will burn inside of you when your mind should be elsewhere. By his statements, the 1% of are “bullying” the desires of 99% within City Council District 1, numbers that are fatally flawed.
First, who are these one percenters? He didn’t mention them by name, but it’s not Warren Buffet. 1% is the number of commuters who travel primarily by bike. By his logic, if I’m the only person who cycles to work in my household, then my wife, family and friends are automatically considered adversaries who hold the opposite opinion. Not likely.
This also does not include the number of people fighting for safety that use cycling as a supplementary form of transportation or recreation purposes. Nor does this include the number of people who walk on North Figueroa that support the safety benefits. I imagine the families involved with the high rate of pedestrian fatalities would be against Cedillo’s claims as well. The proportion of neighborhood councils supporting the bike lanes suggest this is not a trace minority.
Trying to fragment the population in this manner is a dangerous position. Just because you are a minority doesn’t mean that all are opposed to your position. CD1 is roughly 2% African-American. Does that mean if they mobilize on an issue that the other 98% of us are against? Check the Ferguson protests.
Furthermore, the term “bullying” was the most troubling thing mentioned yesterday. None of the speakers addressing this item talked in that kind of tone. Just one person. Guess who?
Cedillo seems insulted that people are confronting him with a devisive political tactic: using facts.
Studies have shown time and time again that bike lanes reduce the occurrence of every form of collision. That puts the opposition in the global warming deniers category.
To say that bike lanes only benefits cyclists are absurd. The lanes in my neighborhood have reduced speeding, noise and collisions involving only cars. Even seniors that only drive in my community understand that these lanes provide a buffer to see oncoming traffic easier when turning onto major streets.
This argument for diagonal lanes goes against his own earlier statement claiming the removal of a traffic lane would hinder the movement of emergency vehicles. Adding bike lanes would not diminish the space between parked cars on opposite sides of the street. Implementing diagonal parking obviously would.
The further leap in logic is thing what safety benefits do diagonal lanes provide? You’ve seen how many accidents take place with cars backing out within parking lot. Now you’re asking people to back out into a 35mph zone? If you’re having trouble sleeping, try to think of all the places in Los Angeles where diagonal parking exists. It’s an eternal loop of thought.
There are many details that cause anger. I holes in his arguments obviously suggest that his opinions are not fact based. Even the 1%ers.
Mr. Cedillo, keep attacking your constituents a percentage at a time and we’ll see where the numbers lie.