Sentinel Multimedia

22 responses so far ↓

• Al // May 6, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  Bicycles should only be allowed to cross Mission St., not ride along it. Mission St. is the worst option possible for any bicyclist. Many of the accidents seem to be students that are unaware of the fact that King St and California St run parrallel to Mission and are much safer. Mission St is Hwy. 1 and unless you have a political agenda like most of Santa Cruz does, it would obviously be the dumbest way to cross that area when so many other safer options exist.

• trixiedelite // May 6, 2008 at 8:58 pm

  I don’t know why people on bikes insist on riding on Mission Street. As was said in this video, there are streets running parallel to Mission on either side of the street. If you’re trying to get to a business on Mission, ride along one of the parallel corridors until you get to a cross-street which allows you access to your destination without spending unnecessary time on a road that has proven time and again to be fatal to bicyclists.
  What’s more important–your right to bike on a highway, or your life?

• Jet Cougar // May 6, 2008 at 10:39 pm

  build a freeway overpass/bypass to allowing mission st to become just a street and not both highway/street. it can run from the river st junction with an exit at uc (the eastern access) again halfway down mission then merge around swift/western onto davenport.

• Rick // May 7, 2008 at 7:33 am

  put up signs to encourage bikers to use alternative routes. They just widened Mission Street because of the traffic problems. This is going to make a mess of the traffic with a biker travelling 10 - 20 mph. Cars will be fighting to get around them and will cause more frustration and accidents.

• Karrie // May 7, 2008 at 9:05 am

  I drive Mission every day on my way to work and see how frustrated drivers get when a car makes a left turn and slows their progress, they dart out into the right lane to get around the turning car. This would be the same if we needed to watch for cyclists - it would slow the already slow traffic. Bicylists on a MAIN thoroughfare when safer alternatives ALREADY

• James // May 7, 2008 at 9:20 am

  It is bad enough going around bikes on Mission Street. Don’t they know it is a busy and dangerous road to ride on????? Now we have to give up a whole lane on a highway to bikers??? Now hold on! Santa Cruz is more PC than ever!!! It sucks that people have died on Mission Street. My common sense tells me not to ride my bike there though!

• Just A Road User // May 7, 2008 at 9:38 am

  Trixie Delite tells us that Mission Street is a killer. Call Sgt. Joe Friday — we have to arrest that asphalt on for Murder One!

  Word up, Trixie! Roads don’t kill people! People in cars kill people! Just going down the road on your bike shouldn’t be a death-defying experience, and if it is, then something ought to be done about the problem.

  If that problem has to with motorists failing to recognize cyclists’ right to use Mission Street, then institute heavy police monitoring of traffic violations on this stretch, and go after the motorists. If problems are exacerbated by bicyclists’ own bad behavior, then enforce the laws on the books against them, too.

  Targeting one population whom you argue shouldn’t need “rights” — under threat of death, for God’s sake — is un-American. It’s astonishing that we can be so aware of the rights of, say, Tibetan monks to block roads in protest of the Chinese government, and go to extremes to prevent the Olympic Torch from traveling through the cities it’s visited, but when someone rides a legal, non-polluting, non-oil-burning, human-powered vehicle in our own cities’ streets, we’re told that those people should forget their rights and go elsewhere.

  Besides, I don’t know why motorists insist on driving on Mission Street. As was said in the video, there are streets running parallel to Mission on either side of the street. If you’re trying to get to a business on Mission, drive along one of the parallel corridors until you get to a cross which allows you access to your destination without spending unnecessary time on a road that has proven time and again a place where motorists have been fatal to bicyclists.

• Otti // May 7, 2008 at 11:58 am

  Having a center turn lane with a single lane in either direction would make things run much more smoothly. There are plenty of very high volume streets with only one lane, such as Laurel or Bay.
  I have seen cars rear end each other quite a few times on Mission, and it was always the result of people either failing to see a left turning vehicle or aggressively moving into the right lane to swing around the stopped vehicle waiting to turn.

  People should stop acting like the cyclists are just reckless. Does any parent feel safe letting their child just use the crosswalks here to get from one neighborhood to the next? Having fewer lanes to cross would help pedestrians out.

  With gas going to $5 and buses poking along every 45 minutes, we really need to rework the infrastructure of a lot of communities.

• Enraged driver // May 7, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  This is rediculous first it was giving them a bike lane and now we’re giving them a whole road what is wrong with people seriously! when they had the bike lane they would ride in the car lane and slow down traffic you know cars thats what goes on roads not bikes!! bicyclists wanna act like there cars and get in our ways but yet they think there to good to pay attention to road signs that why things like that happen. Bicyclists need to be band from roads!!

• zach calden // May 7, 2008 at 2:16 pm

  Mission St. is actually HWY 1.
  would you ride your bike on Hwy 17?

  you may have the right to ride your bike on Mission…but that doesn’t make it smart.

• Graham // May 7, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  We need to work together to find a solution to this issue. There is no one single solution; Caltrans has been dragging their feet with signs in an effort to avoid this debate, but the unfortunate reality is that people / cyclists are getting killed in our community. Cyclists have every right to “take the lane”; it’s complicated I know, but the law treats them as a vehicle. The Santa Cruz City Council had an opportunity to address this issue when Mission Street was widened; they did not.

  Is Mission Street a bad idea to ride a bike down?

  No doubt about it! It’s one of the most dangerous streets in Santa Cruz County.

  Is King Street any better?

  Marginally, I ride it every day and it’s full of traffic that is also using it as an Alternative to Mission. There are other problems with the idea of King Street as a safe alternative route. For one, there is no safe place to be passed while riding a bike. And the round-abouts appear to be designed in an effort to manufacture conflict between cyclist and motorist.

  Santa Cruz has one of the most vibrant cycling communities in the United States. There are an inordinate amount of bike shops here that are locally owned businesses providing a living for members of the community and alternative method of transportation to their customers. More people will be migrating to bikes as gas prices continue to rise; 8 dollar a gallon anyone ? Next week is bike to work week, please take break from the car, you can do it. More info: http://www.bike2work.com/s_cruz/week.html

  Please be careful out there, we are going to see more bikes not less; who knows maybe it could be you?

• Greta // May 8, 2008 at 10:51 am

  It used to be considered a courtesy that big rig drivers would only use the far right lane and let through traffic pass them on the left. Now some big rig drivers are using that left lane in order to avoid
  any potential conflict with bicyclists. The result is we have doubles rigs in both lanes and that has a very negative impact on the flow of traffic in an already miserable situation. Compound this situation with
  bicyclists in the lanes and we will definitely have a traffic nightmare. Will the cyclists have the “right” to ride between cars and trucks like the motorcyclists? Will the bicyclists be required to have a license
  plate that is clearly visible so that any violations can be reported? What about brake lights on the bikes and turn signals? I’m planning on contacting my insurance company to learn my rights in this situation.
  If a cyclist is irresponsible (and in this town that’s a sure thing) and causes an accident I want full recourse. I’ve worked too hard to be the victim of some scam artist on a bike suing me. This could happen to any one of us so please
  think about this seriously. The house you own now could be someone else’s in a swerve of a bike!

• Woody // May 8, 2008 at 7:55 pm

  I lived on the westside for over 20 years and rode my bike into town frequently. Not one time did I ever consider using Mission Street as a route as I thought it was just too dangerous (and it is even busier now!) My common sense told me to use King or California or other side streets to get where I was going. I do not think it is neccessary to have bicycles on Mission Street at all! It’s kind of a great big “Duh”…

• Whosit // May 9, 2008 at 7:34 am

  An alternative way to influence the behavior of drivers on Mission Street is to time the lights. Chico has enforced its 25 MPH speed limit on a very long section of downtown thoroughfare by timing its traffic signals. IF drivers keep to 25 - 30 miles per hour, they can clear the area without having to stop much at all. If they are faster or slower, they will have to stop at just about every signal. This has just about eliminated the “race to the light” that makes for unsafe driving practices such as sudden lane changes to get around slower cars. (That is the most common situation where bicyclists are hit.)

  That would be a great start, and should be done regardless of bicycle users. Having stated that case, I think Mission Street is a very unsafe road for bicyclists. I ride my bike as much as I can around town and avoid that road as though it carries the plague. Giving bicyclists the right to “claim” a lane will give them a false sense of security and only frustrate drivers. (We all know that there will be some situation where a misguided bicyclist, or bunch of bicyclists, come across one or two bone-headed motorists and things turn out horribly wrong.)

• J-Town // May 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  I am a bicyclist and I have been taking the full lane on Mission Street almost every day for over 12 years and I haven’t had a single dangerous encounter with a motor vehicle on this road. I wear a helmet, I wear high-visibility clothing and I pay attention.
  The deaths and injuries I have heard about on Mission are always bikers riding in the margin with cars and trucks trying to go around them.
  It might seem scary at first, but trust me: taking the lane is the only way to go.
  And if you’re a driver on Mission and you can’t stand all the bikes everywhere, please remember that there are safe alternatives like King or California.

• bicyclist/motorist // May 10, 2008 at 8:19 am

  # 1 says it all. Mission is deadly for cylists. I’ve been in numerous near misses & 1 accident. 25 years we waited for CalTrans to fix Mission & relieve traffic in the neighborhoods. Now if you encourage cyclists, it’ll send frustrated drivers back into the neighborhoods–very foolish with all the school kids. Instead make King St. and CA St. into bike friendly roads that are closed to through traffic (signs have already said that since the 70’s, but it isn’t enforced). UCSC and local schools could help publicize safe routes.

• Melissa // May 10, 2008 at 10:05 am

  I never drive on Mission unless I have to . I can use the side streets and cut over to Mission when necessary. I can drive along at 20-25mph and make it across town in 10 MINUTES. Why sit in traffic on Mission for half an hour to go the same distance? If I rode a bike, I would do the same thing. Mission is stressful & dangerous! And the majority of drivers DO NOT watch for bikes, esp. when making right turns. Drivers, CHECK YOUR BLIND SPOTS BEFORE TURNING! I’ve seen many bike riders almost get creamed. And bike riders, USE REAL HAND SIGNALS! I will always yield to a bike changing lanes if I know what your going to do. When bikes zig zag through traffic how can I tell where you’re going? Driving & biking is all about safety and common sense. By the way, hang up and drive.

• anonymous // May 11, 2008 at 9:49 pm

  bikes in california are allowed to use a full lane. these signs are going up to let drivers know that they shouldn’t get all butt hurt about it. riding on a sidewalk is actually more dangerous because a driver won’t notice the bike coming up on them.

• anonymous // May 11, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  and really? are you people really scared of being hurt in a collision with a bike? how many times have drivers died in collisions with bikes?

• HandyDan // May 12, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  The cause of two of the deaths (and many more accidents) is poor design by Caltran and Santa Cruz City for traffic flow. Caltrans: Mission St is poorly aligned, especially the lane change (coming into town form Davenport) just before Bay St. The sudden surge to the right needs to be adjusted a half-block farther West to alleviate the problem large trucks have in swerving into the right lane alongside the school yard.
  Santa Cruz needs leadership (which it has lacked for thirty years or more) to properly plan, advocate, and build adequate traffic channels. A freeway bypass makes sense (hear the Ostriches howl!). Using eminent domain or building a tunnel are not going to be popular in the complacent selfish neighborhoods of Santa Cruz.
  If the City were sincere about addressing the bicycle problem they would pierce the cycle-damaging speed bumps along King Street, eliminate the stupidly placed stop signs, and repave uneven sections — none of which will be done, because the “City” cowtows to local pressure groups rather than considering the common good.
  Lack of leadership is and has been the major problem; “no growth” Ostriches need to bring their heads out of the sand and recognize that California is designed to operate on wheels. Adequate traffic control means accommodating the flow of people and commerce, not obstructing it. Everybody on wheels simply wants to get “there” quickly.
  Traffic planning on the West Side is sixty years too late, but at least that is better than dozens more preventable deaths and never. Maybe three needless deaths a many more injuries can spur our community to choose leadership over compromise so we recognize that smooth traffic flow is a desirable goal and achieve it.

• Lambie // May 13, 2008 at 4:46 am

  I think I should be able to walk my dog without a leash on Mission St.

• Frank Hennessey // May 13, 2008 at 7:44 am

  This is such BS. These cyclists need to drive defensivley and watch out for traffic obsticales just as all vehicals do. Cyclists do not have the right away,only pedestrians in cross walks do.

Leave a Comment

The Sentinel reserves the right to delete any inappropriate posts. Using your real name increases the credibility of your words.