Now I see you are referring to “Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.” And I agree, it does sound like the intersection of an alley and a street counts as an intersection as long as an alley counts as a “highway”.

California Vehicle Code Division 1, Section 275: “… except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.”

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc275.htm

i know i’m a little late to contribute here, but walking across a street mid-block is NOT jaywalking in California unless both intersections to either side of you have a traffic light, or unless the municipality has adopted some anti-pedestrian ordinance further limiting your mobility. San Francisco does have such a rule for “commercial districts”, but I was not able to quickly find online just what blocks these would be (i guess the greater downtown area and other neighborhood commercial strips).

And even alley crossings are considered intersections, so even in Soma, if an alley were to your left and a traffic light over to your right, you could legally cross. that’s not to say you mightn’t get mowed down by some maniac racing to the bay bridge.

Whether or not cyclist puts their foot down at Stop sign is really not the issue, but rather does the intersection function safely? When I look at the video, I see highly coordinated, free-flowing intersection with no anti-social behavior. Just like Shared Street is supposed to work.

Except for the driver who did the dangerous U-turn.

I don’t buy the “public relations” thing… Do you think that, if we all started to be exemplary followers of the traffic law, motorists attributes towards bikers would change fundamentally? Personally, I don’t think so. Simply put — and this is merely my opinion –, being a motorist is miserable and also puts a lot of pressure on the person though he or she may not realize it. Thus, most motorists are angry assholes. How do I know? Observing myself, whenever I have to drive.

I only stop at stop signs when my own or another person’s safety is at stake. I generally do not “take” right of way, but drivers often give it up by not proceeding in a timely manner. I stop at most reds, but may start before the light changes, if it is safe. I do these things because in my judgment they are perfectly safe.

I do not believe the laws are equitable, nor designed to promote safety. I feel they are designed to move the most number of cars as quickly as possible, with a tiny bit of safety thrown in. I also feel that if the beneficiaries of these rules (drivers) cannot follow them, then I am under no obligation to do so.

I understand the “ambassador” argument, but I feel let those who are responsible for the deaths be the ambassadors. Do you really think drivers will think any more kindly of us if we follow all the rules? I’ve been in plenty of cars where the driver swears about about the “damn bikers” under their breath just because the cyclist has slowed them by 10 seconds on their journey to the red light, while the biker was doing nothing illegal, or even inconsiderate.

History shows the only way to get rights is to assert them. Women’s suffrage was not just granted, Civil rights were not just granted. Gay marriage will not just be granted, they all did, or will, required struggle and breaking the rules.

Without the rule breakers, the ambassadors get completely ignored. The ambassadors are certainly necessary, but without the rule breakers no change will happen. I like (and am a member of) the SFBC, but I think Critical Mass did more for cyclists than the SFBC ever will (and I’ve never ridden in CM).

Please tell me this does not include 14th/Harrison

There’s no point driving up to Duboce Park.

I guess we’re just downright civil in Noe Valley. Then you have Valencia which has lights timed for cyclists instead of stopsigns. The gnarliest place on my commute route is the rotary, it’s sort of hard to tell exactly who is breaking the law there – usually “everyone”

If you cycle or drive away from the urban core (the Sunset, Richmond, Ingleside, Excelsior, Bayview) you will find that there is more observance of the law from cyclists in particular.

Often I will be riding down a hill in the Sunset where few cyclists travel and a car driver will be nice enough to forgo their ROW and wave me through the intersection.

The problem is auto-centric traffic planning in extremely dense areas. One day the Wiggle might be a Class 1 bike path and we’ll all look back and realize that the current problems were simply growing pains.

That reminds me, there was at least 1 car that stopped in the marked crosswalk too, my morning commute. I’m guilty of ‘unseeing’ car crimes too!

“The video only clearly displays 1 stop of the intersection, so I only used those cars. I 82 cars total through the intersection, of which only 30 came to a complete stop, and of those 30, 15 stopped in the crosswalk, which is also illegal.

…

Only 18% of the car drivers drove in a safe and legal manner, even though a car is about a thousand times more likely to kill somebody than a bicycle (There’s about 40,000 people killed by cars every year, the number of people killed by bicycle is so low they don’t even track it)

Everybody violates traffic laws, divers, cyclists, and pedestrians, but drivers are the only ones who are likely to kill while doing it.”

What bugs me is the apparent inability of the journalist to follow the next logical step: what are the political and physical conditions for this ‘growing number’ of cyclists in their respective areas (neither Sausalito or San Mateo Co are the “Barbary Coast”)? Assuming the law and infrastructure is already equitable is soft thinking.

My own unscientific tally of my morning commute’s road violations:

Drivers: 3 without headlights on, 2 illegally parked in the bike lane (to drop their kids off at school), 1 turn without a signal, 4 cars snarled at an intersection from an inability to yield (I rolled last).

Pedestrian: 3 pedestrians crossed a street in SOMA before they were notified by the crossing light.

Cyclist (me): 3 stop signs ignored along the long axis of Harrison where there are perpendicular intersections only, including one pedestrian crossing witout any pedestrians. I rate my own violations as good judgment based on the risk I pose to myself and others.

It seems to me that all these violations reflect first on the poverty of appropriate infrastructure.
1. The snarled 4-way stop should have a light for all the traffic on it now;
2. the parents should have a viable alternative to driving their kids to school in the first place;
3. the pedestrians should have flow-responsive lighting; and
4. the cyclists should have yield signs near the relevant intersections.

Also, tip to Scott James: crankily raging against the CM, especially the Halloween CM is like Canute against the tide. Smile and wave next time, you’ll probably get a candy or a hug. You’re in California now.

The safe thing for yourself and everyone else is to acknowledge that these rules exist for all of us and simply follow them. Even when you “know” that you’ll be safe breaking the rules you’re building up bad habits that cause you to increasingly take risks and justify these actions at other times.

Admit it, all of these behaviors are the result of people being lazy and/or impatient and trading that in exchange for safety. None of them are realistically defensible for other reasons though people will certainly try.

Taking the right of way (and not even slowing down) at a stop sign is a bad habit for a cyclist to have: one day they’ll do it and a driver approaching or already stopped won’t see them. Even when the cyclist does it safely, they are probably increasing the polarization between those who predominantly drive and cyclists.

Similarly, is it okay that drivers routinely go 40+ mph on my residential street (speed limit 30)? I don’t think so even though I haven’t seen anyone hit yet — one day someone will (or already has been) hit because that extra 10 mph removed a margin of time for the driver to stop.

The point is, cyclists (and cyclist advocacy groups) tend to take accusations of lawlessness and say “well, we do it in a safe way” or “that’s not the majority of cyclists!” when, in fact, a large number of cyclists in SF do very unsafe things very regularly. Anyone who has ridden through the Wiggle knows this.

We should be making a better effort to educate and change the dangerous behavior — yes, don’t worry about the cyclist who slows down, looks and goes at an empty intersection, but we *should* be doing something about cyclists who blow through unsafely. Similarly, we should probably cite drivers who roll through right turn on reds without looking at the crosswalk, rather than caring about a driver who doesn’t come an absolute stop at a deserted four-way.