Prop 1 - What do you think?  With the vote almost tied at 50:50, what is the proper outcome?  

How about LA County DA, Gascon - he got the most votes but they amount to only 23% of the total votes cast.  That's a RESOUNDING defeat if you ask me - 77% of the voters went for someone else.

Any other races of interest, now that it is all over?

We've had a Republican Congressional representative for a number of years over several office holders.  I haven't looked to see yet.  I got the usual (unread) e-mail and the first line/subject didn't suggest defeated.  Not in L.A. County but understand the opponent for Gascon is a solid opportunity.  One of the opponents was a ringer so a local radio host wouldn't even mention the name or have him/her on to avoid having voters recall the name and vote that way and get two losers in the race.

Prop 1 hopefully will be defeated.   But it's crazy close and vote counting will go on for a while. Defeated, I hope, for 2 reasons. It's bad, taking money from established county programs and feeding it through a state appointed bureaucratic board, it pays for more housing and not enough effective treatment, the SEIU wants it, it's a bond Measure and the state has already seen it's "surplus" evaporate.  #2?  Newson is pushing it and if it shows anything, maybe more voters are starting to get over him.

L.A. City has an "HLA" (?) Measure.  I guess it requires street rehabilitation projects to incorporate bike and bus lanes.  I'm not automatically against dedicated bus and bike lanes.  Cars and buses and street cars and bikes in high densities don't go well together.  Aside from the leftist clowns pushing it, it seems completely unplanned as to which streets will get the lanes, how they might connect to other "lanes," what happens when you reach the border of Los Angeles and county or other cities, it seems awfully likely to create real emergency response problems, trapping fire, police and medical responses, also reducing street capacity in areas which might need evacuations or responses for wildfires, etc.  and it's unfunded, so, if forced to make more complicated and expensive street projects, the money will have to come from other parts of the budget.  so that has a potential to be a royal pain for residents of L.A. and a source of amusement for the rest of us.  Until we have to places in or near L.A.

I am an avid bike rider but I do not support these dedicated bike lanes.  

Anything more than the typical bike route signs and a ~3 foot wide "bike lane" is unnecessary.  Thoose lanes should only be placed where the road is wide enough do so without reducing the number of lanes for motor vehicles.  Honestly, those aren't needed either, as the vehicle code already provides for bicycles on the roads.  No, I do not take a lane away from cars.  I ride to the right as far as is practicable - you can pass me without changing lanes.

The truly separate bike lanes become places where drunkards go, where inattentive people ride, where children ride without adequate supervision, where people ride in the wrong lane, where electric motor cycles feel they can go 30 mph alongside all the above,... every manner of violation of the rules of the road.  Then, on top of all that, the City imposed an 8mph speed limit (I never ride at or below 8 mph).  I avoid those bike lanes like the plague.

To reduce the number of motor vehicle lanes expecting people to ride their bikes to work and to the stores is seriously flawed thinking/planning.  It amounts to destroying infrastructure rather than building infrastructure.  Most things bike advocates propose are a disaster.

I'm going to sign off now and go for a ride.  It's a beautiful day.

P.S. -

I'm also not a fan of the new CA Vehicle Code regulations that require motor vehicles to change lanes, if a lane is available, when passing a bicyclist.  The 3' minimum law is still in effect, if that second lane is not available.  

Can you imagine anyone not being able to pass a cyclist because of a double yellow line on a 2 lane road, especially if no one is coming the other way?

I see all this as causing animosity between motorists and cyclists.

If your vehicle passes me by 12", I'm fine with that.  Just be careful and don't hit me!

Okay, my rant is over.

It's an extremely stupid and thoughtless law.  I can't stand hardcore cyclist types in any State.

Here they will ride shoulder-to-shoulder on a road that is single-lane in each direction, has no shoulder whatsoever, is windy such that there is no safe way (nor a legal way) to move into the opposite lane to pass, and it goes uphill in one direction, so the bikes end up going well below the speed limit (which is lower than the average speed of vehicular travel there).  The cyclists will also block the intersections to traffic (and not just on this road) while their comrades are riding so they can pass unimpeded by vehicles (not stopping for the light or stop sign, that's for sure).  There are equestrians sometimes on this road, which is its own problem.  There is another like it that explicitly prohibits equestrians but not cyclists.  Both should be prohibited on both roads, although the former is not on the former road because some of those properties are horse properties.

Cyclists are extremely entitled and without justification.  Despite the law creating a fiction to the contrary, human and animal powered vehicles are simply not
equal to motor vehicles and should not have the same or even superior rights on the road to them.  It's not safe or sound.  I do think restrictions on them on sidewalks in certain areas should be eased up, though, as it is less unsafe than having them on those roads.  I say this as someone who used to have to get around on his bike since I did not have a driver's license or a car until I was 21.