Part of that is having the confidence in one's position to occasionally cede power at strategic junctions rather than strong arm a strait jacketed process. The mano duro approach is a sign of insecurity in the substance of one's political position and/or underestimating one's political power and generally produces brittle, non durable outcomes.

The Bicycle Advisory Committee needs to adopt the task of taking the temperature of cyclists and ascertaining what our community's priorities are as relates to the various policy realms related to cycling. These priorities should be reflected in official city bicycle policy documents.

The SFBC is a lot like the proselytizing missionary or a developer lobbyist or the SFBG for that matter, as we all know that the SFBC wants bike lanes über alles just like we've all heard the "good news" of the New Testament, know what Bruce and Tim think of PG@E, and know the developers want unrestricted zoning. Your concerns have been noted and logged, Kirk out.

Given the paralysis in achieving their main goals over the past five years and given the lack of engagement in critical issues such as enforcement and dangerous conditions mitigation, the SFBC has really forfeited the high ground in dominating this discourse moving forward.

The BAC needs to step up and own its broader base of political legitimacy and take on the task of fostering a public process that engages cyclists in self determination for our own policy future. This public process should be integrated into a rolling approach to bicycle facilities improvement where ideas are constantly incubated, studied, prioritized and implemented instead of producing unwieldy omnibus legal targets.

-marc

It seems that cyclists will want to go in a straight line and will still end up being close to a lot of cars.

Sliding doors may help with this but unfortunately it seems that only some delivery trucks and cars like the Peugeot 1007 have them.

...actions which are not funded, or even designed.

Like all quality studies it just hangs a bunch of suggestions in mid-air and seemingly waits for some planning gnomes to come during the night and do the work.

As I was saying enforcement was not addressed in the bike plan...

There are a lot of things that could be done, but...no place to do the work, because the bike plan was privatized by the SF Bike Corporation.

http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bhome/homebikes.htm

5. ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY
ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
Goal:
Improve bicycle safety through targeted enforcement
Objectives:
• Increase San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) enforcement of motorist and bicyclist traffic violations that pose the greatest threat to safety
• Provide San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) bicycle safety education to SFPD staff and to those cited for moving violations that focuses on safe cycling, relevant traffic laws and safe sharing of the roadway
• Increase SFMTA and SFPD enforcement of motorist violations in bicycle facilities

SO first on the list is to enforce against motorists AND CYCLISTS which pose the greates threat to safety. Second in the priority list is to educate the SFPD, and finally is the call to protect bicycle facilities.

It seems like this was written to "balance" the interests of cyclists with motorists instead of as a visionary document that illustrates a bike-centric view. Maybe the calls for enforcement against cyclists should be relegated to the "auto plan?" Of course, even play is an auto plan in a city that pays only lip service to the notion of "transit first."

When we criticize the SFBC and the MTA Bicycle Program for their lack of accountability, we do so for reasons evident in their work product, the anti-cyclist approach of this official policy document.

-marc

I wonder what would happen if cyclists just started injuring motorists randomly, and admitting fault. "Oh, yeah, sorry. Didn't see you there. Sorry about the head injuries. Well, off I go!"

Or, for that matter, if cyclists all over the city, all day and all night long, just arbitrarily closed down an entire street to automobile use because, you know, we got somethin' to do and we're just going to occupy some other mode's entire roadway for a while? Yep--there would be a sudden blizzard of SFPD citations.

This city better catch up to the times, 'cause they are a changin'.

Enjoy the Bike Network.

My $0.02:
1. Focusing on improving education is entirely right, but also unavoidably inadequate so long as DMV licensing requirements are set so low, and a license that prepares you for the congested highways of Anyplace, USA does precious little for your technical driving in mixed-use San Francisco, or rural Soledad for that matter.

2. Slightly wider spacing between dooring-prone parked cars and a bike lane could have helped in this case in that the increased distance also increases reaction time for both cyclist and driver. It's a skin of an improvement, but an improvement nonetheless.

3. If we want to start to specialize the space, then Valencia would make a very good candidate as a "Bike Boulevard." The cars dominate Guerrero and Dolores, and Mission is both heavily transit and heavily pedestrian. Generally segregated east-west crossings for cars and bikes are also feasible, with 16th, 17th, 24th, and Cesar Chavez demonstrating likely spots.

I don't agree that there are no infrastructure changes that could have prevented that accident. A bike lane between parked cars and the curb would have prevented that accident. Getting rid of car parking on Valencia Street would have prevented that accident. Eliminating cars on Valencia Street altogether would have prevented that accident. Just because these are options we don't want to pursue (yet?) doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Just saw a cop giving a cyclist a ticket in Golden Gate Park while CarSharing by the Conservatory of Flowers on my way up to the Richmond.

-marc

Driving is an inherently-dangerous activity -- oftentimes it is lethal. We need laws that actually deal with this reality.

Education is great, but we need enforceable laws so we don't have to beg the DA to beg charges when these crimes happen.

And waiting, and waiting and waiting.

What's been the impediment for these past six years since we've opened up the Police Commission?

Surely watching the paint dry on the bike plan could not have been all that consuming?

-marc