Of course neither one of us can prove or disprove such a statement. But I’d damn sure prefer an 8′ bike lane and a slower speed limit than what we had there before: a 2′ bike lane and two lanes of 40 MPH traffic.

The tragedy of the person going northbound at 1 a.m. in the morning was very sad. Why a wide formation like that at 1 a.m. in the morning, especially if that section is dark? Having that lane a dedicated bicycle lane wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy. If the tragedy was partially caused by lighting, then the bicyclists should have advocated for better lighting, not taking away a lane from motorists 24/7, during all seasons, all peak periods.

If there were other bicycle deaths on 101, those should have been verified with statistics as to the side of the highway they occurred on, what portion of 101, the date they happened, the name of those involved. Instead, everything was very vague. No one confirmed the accidents were on northbound N101, except for the single accident, two years ago, that was repeated over and over, at least 4 or 5 times, according to Tony Kranz, but without letting Council and the public audience know that the same accident was being repeated. The impression that was given, intentionally, was that MANY accidents occurred northbound on N101, to justify lane elimination for motorists. Where most of the accidents or near accidents actually occurred, on west side, southbound, there are Sharrows. They should have been put on both sides of the highway. N101, on the east side, shouldn’t have been singled out for a trial run, experimental lane elimination for motorists, as part of the 101 Streetscape, which extends from A St. to La Costa, so is decidedly south of Leucadia and N101.

The driver was convicted of a hit and run – NOT drunk driving. And I don’t know where you heard the rest about him drifting between lanes. Lane 2 had an alleged “bike lane” 2′ wide at that point (100 feet across from my shop)- barely wide enough for one bike, let alone 6 in formation. My best friend who was watching my place at the time, heard the impact, the screaming, and went out to discover the horrible scene. And like I said before, it wasn’t the only cyclist killed here on 101, just the most recent. The two cyclists who were doored were 10′ from the front of my shop both got broken bones. I assume they survived, but nonetheless, broken bones can be a lot more than a temporary inconvenience. They each were taken away in an ambulance. If talking about real carnage caused by inadequate bike lanes “emotionalism” so be it. I imagine you’ve had an emotional reaction if you ever grabbed onto 110 Volts before. Makes you not want to do it again.

And to address what someone else said earlier about an official report saying “roundabouts not recommended next to railroads”, of course we won’t have a roundabout at Leucadia Blvd interacting with trains. Ideally though, bikes should be on the railroad right of way, tracks should be buried, and then another roundabout should be placed at Leucadia Blvd. I timed how long I had to stop there yesterday. 2 min. the same time it took to cruise 30 – 35 MPH from there to Roberto’s. Almost a mile. What a waste of time, gas, money and air, huh?

It is emotionalism when the same accident is repeated by at least four or five people, and when it was caused by a drunk hit and run driver who drifted over to lane two, at 1 in the morning. We are all terribly sorry for the tragic loss of life, two years ago; but it has nothing to do with lane elimination for motorists on North 101, on the east side of the highway.

Rather than taking away a lane for motorists, to give it to bicyclists, who could still legally share the only remaining lane for motorists, if they’re passing, or to go around an obstacle (like a puddle), a Class One (lane elimination for motorists is for a Class Two lane, connected directly to the highway) Bicycle Lane. The Class One Railway Corridor bicycle laneWOULD BE SEPARATED from the highway by dirt. The thorn bearing plants should be removed, NOT a lane for motorists, which “lane diet” negatively impacts Coastal Resources, causing longer periods of traffic delay, more stop and go, as people try to merge, and more air pollution, in the process, more challenges to public health and safety caused by more cut through traffic, delayed emergency response times, and more challenges leaving the beach, trying to turn left onto the highway, for local commuters.