your focus on semantics in the quest to discover “who/what is number 2?” wreaks of spending too much time with stephen box. while it may be a good academic exercise, you have failed to confront the important question, “Why has Fisher (whether #2 or not) consistently blocked the advancement of bicycling in Los Angeles?”

even when you almost arrive at that inquiry, the piece reverts its attention to needle another advocate.

ted rogers is not holding back bicycling in los angeles. john fisher is. your continuation on this malignant path is blocking progress as well.

So why is he not a good target? Why should he not be responsible for the crappy Sharrows?

Fisher might be worthwhile to target in the sense that he may be able to do positive things for cyclists, and seeking his attention could be worthwhile. However, to frame him as responsible for the failures of the City of LA on biking is simply not in line with the facts. Mowery’s title is Bicycle Coordinator, and has been for 14 years, so a lack of production or coordination of facilities falls on her.

Re the sharrows – documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request show that Michelle Mowery was the lead for DOT on the sharrows study, for the $50k they received. Jen Klausner was the lead for LACBC who received $35k. These are the two entities responsible for writing the documents which guide the implementation of sharrows, and so these are the responsible party. Bikeways is not part of Operations, so if Bikeways makes a mistake in instructing the Bureau of Street Services on sharrows implementation, that’s not on Operations, it’s on Bikeways.

@Ted Rogers aka BikinginLA:

Actually son, while my conclusions are fair game, who I talked to and how I did my research is none of your business.

Wilco Tango Foxtrot!

Anyway, the point is Ted, there’s more than one Assistant GM, each has substantial power, and neither is second in command. 2nd in command is an exclusive thing, if one person is 2nd in command, another cannot be. It’s not shared. You used the notion that Fisher is 2nd in command to explain that the responsibility ultimately rests with him. I’m saying he is not 2nd in command, and that breaks your argument.

The idea that only an engineer can manage engineering decisions, and that only people with engineering degrees and certification are engineers – that notion is rhetorically and factually flawed.

@Danceralamode – it may be that Fisher is a perceived leader. But again, if he doesn’t have authority over the Bikeways department (and he doesn’t), short of a smoking gun, how can you hold him responsible for Bikeways failures. Rogers is shifting responsibility off Mowery onto Fisher, but with no evidence to support the exoneration, partial or complete, of Mowery.

Yet it seems so possible.

Okay, you went full nerd first, (I was gonna bring up Crusher too, but thought that would reveal too much of my Trekkiness). Dr. Crusher does have the power to relieve Captain Picard from duty (which she had just done in the episode I was watching while first reading this article). I don’t think Fisher is like Data, although Data has taken over command on several occasions, sometimes to save the crew, other times because he has been induced by some kind of homing beacon, like in the episode where Dr. Soong dies and gives Data his emotion chip. So who is in power or in command doesn’t always relate to an org chart. Sometimes an org chart is just a chart.

Anyways, my point is (yes, I actually do have one) that there are leaders as defined by an organizational chart, and then there are “perceived” leaders within an organization. People who, due to seniority or rank or based on relationships they have built, are perceived by their peers and/or the public as having leadership power. There is an article I would like to reference on this–if I can find it I will link it.

Still, I don’t believe even that matters. I think that we should be targeting as many people as possible to influence them to become supporters of bike and pedestrian projects. In fact, we should be targeting everyone to be supporters of these projects, from the Mayor down. I don’t think it has to be one target or the other.

As I stated in my comment, if I got Fisher’s position wrong, so did the people who wrote the new bike plan. And so does LADOT’s own website, which list him second behind Robinson and only lists two AGMs, along with one acting AGM — for Finance and Administration, not engineering.

Oh damn, I just revealed some of my research.

From the LADOT website about us section:

“As a voting member of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, he advises the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans, respectively, on innovations in traffic controls that should be adopted to improve traffic flow and safety. He has authored several national and local articles on transportation.”

That statement right there indicates he is a highly influential person not only in LA but at the state and federal levels.

So why is he not a good target? Why should he not be responsible for the crappy Sharrows? Are the ulterior motives from you an your gang? Do you have a special relationship with John?

You write that:

“John Fisher has a lot of power in the LADOT and he has a long track record that doesn’t favor safety for bikes and pedestrians.”

Where’s the track record?

I’m happy to discuss these things with you if you provide actual concrete facts. You ask what other critical facts Rogers gets wrong . . . this is what I said above:

In another post I will look at the other failures of fact in Rogers’ post.

and that is what I will do.

@Kevin – discussing what officials at the most important agency for bikes are responsible for failur isn’t a worthwhile contribution?

@Kenefick – if you want to know what strategy I think is most appropriate . . . well I don’t share that with everyone. But I will be discussing at more length who I think should be held accountable.

You write that “Do we go back to demonizing Michelle (because that’s been so productive in the past 5 years)?” That’s not really true – firstly some organizations and individuals have been very easy on Mowery, and to some extent still defend her. Kent Strumpell still supports her, and now Ted Rogers is shifting the blame off Mowery. So the “we” is not historically accurate. Just because bike activists have failed thus far to remove Mowery dose not mean she’s not a problem, and it does not mean that highlighting her failures has not worked as a strategy. In fact, I think that strategy is partly responsible for the improvements in the bike plan.

@The Dude Abides – aka Foldie: There is no 2nd in Command at LADOT. Also – “brass tacks.”

@Iain Marjoribanks aka numerous forms of EN: The two aren’t mutually exclusive. It is fair and reasonable for organizations to comment on each others conduct, particularly when that conduct is in public. It is fair and desirable for bloggers to comment on each others posts. The lack of serious commentary on both is bad thing, not a good thing. It leads to an environment where critique is rare, people are thin skinned, and orgs and bloggers don’t receive important negative feedback.

@danceralamode – Star Trek is always on my mind.

Finally, @Ted Rogers (bikinginla):

Ummm, I don’t get it. Yes, Amir Sedadi and John Fisher are both Assistant General Managers. As is Selwyn Hollins. None of them are 2nd in Command to Rita, as no one of them dominates the department formally or informally.

You say that “the research I’ve done over the last 6 months suggests” Fisher is a problem. Ok, if you’ve got 6 months of research, lets see it. It wasn’t present in your post. How you did 6 months of research and concluded wrongly that Fisher is the 2nd in Command at LADOT I don’t understand.

maybe fisher is like beverly crusher? i think she had three dots on her collar, just like number two? but, she was just a doctor, though i do remember her having to take command on the rare occasion.

maybe there are no three dots, only two dots? so maybe sedaddi and fisher are more like Data, Worf, and Geordy?

in that case, i say Fisher is like Data (or his evil twin Lor) calculated, strong, but ultimately – emotionless. responds to logic. favors automobiles, because most angelenos do.

down with Data!

Fisher’s office is the principal department in the city for making decisions on what will, or won’t, happen with the roads.

I too read the LADOT organization chart, their budget(s), their internal newsletters, their council files, their traffic counts, and anything else I can get my hands on. I read them to use them to change things for the better, not go geek-crazy on people I’m working with.

This is like arguing vi vs emacs.

It’s entirely possible that I may be wrong about Fisher. However, the research I’ve done over the last 6 months suggests otherwise, as does the abysmal lack of infrastructure on L.A.’s streets.

However, I do thank you for changing the tone from that of your previous post. But what, pray tell, does the LACBC have to do with anything? Does the fact that I’m now a board member preclude me from having and expressing my own opinions?

i wish that the Bikeside Watchdog Blog was a separate entity, because I would like to be able to just unsubscribe to that one.

I support Bikeside: the 501c4 lobbying structure, the sass Bikeside can dole out, and that they are doers–like with the Backbone network.

I’ve never met Ted Rogers. It appears to me that a bunch of people have a big problem with him. But he can’t make a change, he can just write about stuff.

So what’s the plan, Bikeside? How do we get the right person(s) installed in the right place(s) to make these changes.

John Fisher has a lot of power in the LADOT and he has a long track record that doesn’t favor safety for bikes and pedestrians.

What are the other “critical facts” that you assert that Ted Rogers “gets… wrong” on that initial post about John Fisher?