Skip to content
by Bryan Goebel
Not that I need to post this, but wow. Just when he couldn’t find any more dirt at the bottom, he pulls out this gem.
“The bicycle is the politics to San Francisco. It’s like the crucifix to Christianity,” he told us.
When I see “Rob Anderson promises appeal if injunction is lifted” followed by two stories about cyclists getting killed in crashes, it is a sad day. We need to provide more safe, well marked routes – not continue to block them for whatever reasons or to grind whatever ax. These are people’s lives we are talking about.
mikesonn – Both fatal bike collisions in Lodi and Tilden Park were the result of the bicyclist drifting into and colliding with opposing traffic. Well marked routes wouldn’t have made any difference in these 2 collisions.
Glad to see the bay bridge bike lanes moving along steadily, if slowly. Amazing that we need a bill to authorize tolls from the bridge to be spent on improvements to the bridge in the first place!
EL – not speculating on whether I believe it or not, and not knowing if the police had specific evidence, the only witness to either crash was the driver of the SUV and motorcycle.
However, I do think there is a world of difference between riding your bike down Market Street to the office at a moderate pace, and being out on a training ride in Tilden Park. In some sense, a training ride in Tilden Park is more akin to skiing or skydiving than it is to a bike commute. Generally safe but with known underlying risks. Riding down Market at 10 MPH should be 100% safe.
John Murphy – It’s usually pretty easy to determine point-of-inpact based on debris, blood, skid marks, resting point of the vehicles, resting point of the bicyclists, etc. In other words, the physical evidence by itself can determine if the bicyclists in both collisions veered into opposing traffic. The physical evidence is also usually much more valuable than the (biased) statements of the parties involved. Given the severity of the collisions (resulting in fatalities), you can bet that there’s plenty of physical evidence.
EL – I’ve seen situations where some very smart people have been able to do amateur accident reconstruction that has proven much more compelling than the work the police did (Rodney Smith in PV).
I’ve also seen situations where the physical evidence and reconstruction by the police directly contradicted the version from the driver – who then ended up in jail (Campos/Fitch – Uvas Road).
So it’s pretty good science, but not exact.
I read the article on the CA High Speed Rail bill and it’s hard to decide how to feel about it. I’m generally in favor of picking businesses with good corporate responsibility histories for gov’t contracts. But things seem to be at such a point where HSR has become such a political football that putting ever more conditions on the process are troubling. I suppose a test of good faith on the bill’s author is whether he would ban CA from doing business with Ford and IBM?
Perhaps just trivia, but many of us will make conclusions from this: http://www.strava.com/rides/114499/segment_efforts/1223662 (the cyclist who died in Tilden holds the second place record for speed down South Park drive).
“Well marked routes wouldn’t have made any difference in these 2 collisions.”
So I guess that’s an argument for physically separated bike lanes.
“You don't need any quotas. Just tell your officers to go out and cite the most egregious and dangerous violations on the streets. And use statistics, not your car-centric bias, to determine what those are.”
In response to "New SFPD Traffic Chief Ann Mannix Hesitant to "Focus on the Five""