A Bicycle Rider’s Crash on Valencia Street: Was Serious Injury Preventable?

The standard bike lanes on Valencia Street place riders in a dangerous spot right alongside moving cars. Photo: Bryan Goebel

An unidentified man in his late twenties was rushed to San Francisco General Hospital after falling off his bike and being run over by a minivan in the Mission District Wednesday evening.

San Francisco police confirmed the 7:30 pm crash on Valencia Street between 17th and 18th Streets. According to eyewitness Brooke DuBose, the rider was traveling in the bike lane when he appeared to lose control of his bicycle and fall in front of the passing vehicle, which apparently ran over his torso and head. The driver stopped and he and his family were visibly distraught. The victim was wearing a helmet.

“This was one of those situations where nobody was at fault, and even on one of our best bike corridors in the city, the design is still not safe enough,” said DuBose, who works as a bicycle transportation planner.

“When I saw what happened, and how close this person came to dying just bicycling home,” she thought, “we just need to build our streets so much better than they are now.”

The rider appeared to be reaching into his rear pocket when he lost control, said DuBose. Police and ambulances arrived within minutes, and police said a citation was issued to the driver for not having a license. A police spokesperson would only say the man’s condition was “non-life threatening.”

Had a physically separated bike lane been available, this victim probably wouldn’t have been run over. The SF Bicycle Coalition is calling for protected bike lanes on Valencia Street in its Connecting the City campaign.

The victim likely wouldn't be in the hospital had he fallen on a bikeway like this one in Aarhus, Denmark. Photo: Aaron Bialick
  • www.greenidea.eu

    Helmet are not designed for crashes like this, so why mention it? Not having a license – i.e. perhaps never having formally learned how to drive – gets a citation? Regarding Connecting the City, how about a 15 to 20mph zone here AND some kind of semi-permeable space for more delicate (young, old, new, slow) cyclists? Actually, everybody is a fault.

  • I mentioned the helmet because Dubose made it a point that she felt it made a big difference. I don’t wear a helmet myself, and agree that they don’t appear to be a scientifically supported safety measure. However, I included it because I felt it’s something readers would want to know since his head was said to be run over.

    Also, I believe Valencia Street has a 25 mph zone, but the signals are synchronized to about 13 mph.

  • SteveS

    This is a sad reminder of why advocates need to speak up about the half-assed designs we’ve been getting out of projects like the Valencia Streetscape Project. Encouraging cyclists to use poorly designed bike lanes that require them to ride within a few feet of much faster passing traffic to stay out of the door zone can actually make cyclists less safe then they were when the street had no amenities.

    So from a safety perspective, we should not always accept every project as “imperfect but incremental progress.” If the Valencia project had been taken as an opportunity to put in physically separated bike lanes at the same time, this person would likely not be in the hospital now.

  • EL

    So let me get this straight…. the much-lauded design of Valencia is now faulty because a bicyclist took their hand off the handlebar to grab something from their rear pocket, lost control of their bike in the process, and then veered into a traffic lane and got run over?

    Just look at the photo in this article. It’s almost nighttime, cars have their headlights on, and here we have a cyclist with no light, no helmet, and wearing sunglasses!

  • cTo

    Yeah, well, shes on a mission from God.

  • Anonymous

    you must be fun at parties

  • Anonymous

    El – since you are the “resident fact checker” around here – how do you know it was “almost nighttime” as opposed to “6:45 AM and the sun was just coming up”?

  • Anonymous

    That van doesn’t look like it’s parked close enough to the curb, its wheels are over the parking space markers.

  • EL

    Thanks for the compliment murphstahoe.

    You can easily tell by the shadows of the City’s western landscape on the buildings in the background. It means the sun is toward the west. DUH! Plus, there’s lots of cyclists going south of Valencia in the photo, which is another clue.

  • Brooke DuBose

    Green Idea: I’m a professional transportation planner and I’m very familiar with helmets and traffic safety issues. In watching this terrible incident happen, his helmet most likely saved his life. There was a huge crack along one side of the helmet which would have otherwise been his skull.

    Neither of us can speak to his level of confidence, but I doubt that wearing a helmet determined his behavior. In any case, from what I have heard this man is doing okay and did not suffer any brain damage. I am so relieved to hear this, and I will most certainly be wearing my helmet for the foreseeable future. There’s no harm in wearing one.

  • The point is that making a mistake that would cause one to fall off their bike shouldn’t also mean being run over by a car. Focusing on the responsibilities of the vulnerable road users who are being put into unnecessarily dangerous situations gets us nowhere fast.

  • EL

    If all parking on Valencia were removed, couldn’t the same thing happen? Even with a cycletrack, it could still happen at an intersection, midblock crosswalk, or driveway. It sounds like the only “solution” is to have all bike lanes and no traffic at all, including Muni, to eliminate any the potential.

    Since all bike lanes next to traffic are “unnecessarily dangerous” (using your words), does this mean that no more should be painted and instead the focus should be on closing roads?

  • Curbside lanes have significantly lower risk due to (ideally) not having cars stopping in them to parallel park, double park, turn right, and drivers obliviously opening their doors, so there’s much less cause for bicyclists to fall in the first place.

    A wider, physically protected lane is even better since if they do fall, they probably won’t be in the path of a motor vehicle. Yes, motor vehicles do always present a hazard, particularly at intersections, so we should do everything we can do minimize conflicts and accommodate them in a safe manner. That means taking measures including very visible markings at crossings, separate bicycle traffic phases, ensuring ample conditions for motor vehicle turns, prohibiting those turns where needed, and even reducing hazardous private driveways, which you mentioned.

    There’s plenty of room to accommodate Muni and bicycles together safely, and even cars to a certain extent. However, the question of whether or not every street needs to be a motor roadway where we permit private vehicles is certainly worth examining (and is already being explored on Market Street).

  • SteveS

    Valencia could have been fixed without taking any additional parking or traffic lanes. Instead of building all the curbside bulbouts (replacing them with islands in the parking lane near intersections to daylight them), the bike lanes could have been put curbside outside the parking lanes, and the space reclaimed from the center turn lane could have been allocated to sidewalk widening and a buffer zone between the passenger side of parked cars and the cycletracks.

    It seems to me that this would have been a win/win/win for all road users, much moreso than the odd center cycletrack we’re going to end up with now. In this design, the rider in the story would have landed in the parking lane buffer or the sidewalk, instead of under a moving car.

  • www.greenidea.eu

    @Steve S: Is that very odd centre cycle track already agreed upon? Andy from the Bike Coalition mentioned that there is one example of something similar, but while I see part of the point as a kind of Green Wave, it is unclear to me how cyclists will turn off the path at anywhere besides the intersections and also how – since it will be a two-way path – head-on collisions will be avoided. Existing Green Waves do not have two-way bike traffic. Having this be a slow street for cars and a fast street for bikes while still encouraging slow cycling and having to deal with commercial deliveries too seems like a lot to chew on.

    I think we need to see how Dutch state-of-the-art would work on these streets. Valencia as a slow street with limited car access, Mission as a street with buses and perhaps S. Van Ness as the fastest bike street — though ALL the streets would need to be safe… some would be faster! Get it? Yes, there is a lot of space to make a perfect solution in the S. Van Ness/Market/Van Ness area with cycle-specific turn signals and so on.

  • Mike7962

    Meanwhile, bicyclists are also getting sent to the hospital on the other side of the city. Here a woman cyclist was hit at 19th Avenue and Sloat on Wednesday 4/6.

    She had head injuries too. Look at the damage to her bike:

    http://i56.tinypic.com/2mgp3zt.jpg

  • Eugene

    someone please read my blog! PLEASE!

  • PaulCJr

    19th ave is a disaster. I understand that people use it to get to the northbay, but their ease shouldn’t come at the expense of our lives and a pleasant city to live in. We need to come up with a better solution.

  • www.greenidea.eu

    Replying to Aaron: Thanks. What expertise does Dubose have regarding helmets? Not to blame the victim, but is it also possible that the cyclist was over-confident because he was wearing a helmet? I have heard about that signal-syncing so why is the limit still 25? (I think – am no expert – that cars going 13mph can stop very quickly.)

  • Mirallegirl

    The guy hit is married to my cousin. He has been in the ICU since the accident suffering fractures to his skull, spine, ribs, and shoulder amongst other internal injuries. But he will survive after a long and painful recovery. All accounts are that the helmut Though completely mangled did in fact save his life (the skull fracture was not life-threatening). Please keep him and my cousin in your prayers. They have a long road ahead and are beautiful, loving people.

  • Sorry

    I’m sorry but what? You could just as easily argue that accidents like this mean that bicycles should be prohibited from streets where there are cars because clearly bicycle riding is unsafe..
    Something bad happened–a bicyclist somehow did something (an action they took? debris in the road? medical emergency?) such that they fell. That’s not a design flaw in the road.

  • jd

    EL, I think it’s a poor design if falling off your bike (for whatever reason) means you get run over by a car. I think to put it in perspective, it would be like having 2 lanes of road going in the same direction with the right lane only being for passenger cars going 30 mph and the left lane only for 18-wheelers going 60 mph. There is no way in hell we would design a road light that, because the difference in speed and mass of the two types of vehicles in such close proximity means tiny mistakes turn into tragic accidents. Yet we think this is okay when it comes to bicycles and cars …..

    In fact, this is the same reason why we don’t put sidewalks in the space where we put bike lanes. Instead, we put parked cars, a curb, and usually greenery and trees between the sidewalk and the moving cars. Why? Because the pedestrians are just too vulnerable and cars too dangerous. You simply have to minimize the interactions between the the two (and intersections are the one place where they must interact … and, not surprisingly, where the vast majority of pedestrian-car accidents happen).

    The screwed up part of all this is: bicyclists are just as vulnerable as pedestrians (sitting atop 20 lbs of steel does nothing to protect you in a collision with a car), yet we think it’s acceptable to put bicycles in this dangerous space squeezed between parked cars and moving cars. We would (rightfully so) never subject pedestrians to this, yet bicyclists are supposed to be happy when they even get this (as compared to no bike lane). It goes to show you how far we have to go in our urban design. Introducing the car to our cities 100 years ago has knocked us way back in terms of livable urban design, and we have a long way to go to recover.

  • jd

    Green Idea, I agree with you. I think Valencia ultimately should be made virtually car-free. In fact, I have no idea why the hell anybody drives down it anyway when there are the major thoroughfares that are Guerrero and South Van Ness to either side which are must faster and which you don’t risk the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians as much. But since we won’t ban cars on Valencia anytime soon, and since there are so many self-absorbed drivers out there who obliviously drive down the whole length of Valencia without stopping to think that they are jeopardizing the safety of all the pedestrians and bicyclists (and it is taking them a longer time), I think a good intermediate solution ….

    Bollards. Every block, put up bollards on one end so through traffic can’t go through. The only cars that will drive down Valencia are the ones that truly need to go there, and even then it will be for only one block at most. Imagine how this would cut back on car traffic. I don’t know what the hell we are waiting for. Every time on my bicycle I beat a car down 10 block of Valencia, I look at them wondering if they realize the pointlessness and danger of their driving down such a major pedestrian street.

  • jd

    I agree with you, Paul. 19th Ave, like Fell and Oak, are relics from another time period, when we (somehow) thought designing our cities around roads designed purely for cars going at freeway speeds was a good idea. It is just mind-boggling to think that we ever though this was a good idea. Just like, if I was able to go back in time to the 18th century and could ask a slave owner how they could possibly justify slavery, I look at the urban planners of the mid- and late 20the century and wonder how they hell they ever thought what they were doing was a good idea. Crazy stuff. And more crazy how many people *still* think it’s okay …..

  • jd

    Sorry, but it is a design flaw. See my previous post in my response to EL. Not giving bicycles the ability to make mistakes (for whatever reason) without being run over by a 4,000 lb car would be like designing cars without crumple zones, or air bags, or seat belts and then saying when there’s an accident, “Hey, the driver should have been paying attention when he rear-ended the other car. He deserved to be injured.”

    However, I do think you are right in that it makes no sense for a human-powered 20 lb vehicle that travels 10-15 mph and with on external shell or safety features to be sharing the same space as a 4,000 lb vehicle with 100s of horsepower and all kinds of safety features. Hence why we need cycle tracks buffered with parked cars or curbs.

    And ultimately, I think we do need car-free roads. There is absolutely on reason cars need to be able to go on every single block in our city (including our friggin parks). We can’t really be that lazy and oblivious to the destruction caused by cars … or can we?

  • EL

    Sorry to break this to you jd, but you can be assured that there are plenty of examples where cars travel at speed directly adjacent to a pedestrian that’s stationary. Here’s some examples for you:

    Any corner bulb-out.
    Any bus bulb-out
    Any refuge island

    And by the way, there are also plenty of examples of road where cars go 60 mph while 18 wheelers go 30 mph in the adjacent lane in the same direction. You’ve obviously never climbed the Grapevine on I-5, or gone to Tahoe/Reno on I-80 or Hwy. 50.

  • Sorry

    You can’t design for perfect safety, nor should you. I don’t want to be told I cannot ride on the many amazing roads around here (say in the Santa Cruz Mountains) because there are cars there, or commute to work because there are cars there. Or go mountain biking because if I mess up in some places I’ll fall off a cliff and there’s no net to catch me.

    Or drive on a road other than a freeway because a head-on accident is often fatal.

    If you want maximum safety, ride on a stationary bike at the gym. (Charter a bus or tank to get there.) And yes, set a max speed limit of say 10mph for all vehicles including cars and bicycles and horses.

    It’s good to hear that this rider will most likely survive, and a helmet helped. That’s what you do to minimize risk: wear a helmet (a motorcycle safety instructor died several years ago due to not wearing a helmet. He was walking around in the class, tripped, hit his head, and died.). wear gloves. use lights. ride defensively. have good medical care available.

    And yes, design does matter–but Valencia has a pretty good design.

  • ZA

    Limited access perhaps. All the restaurants and Cherin’s in the photo need delivery vehicles during part of, or all of, the day. The health of these businesses is the health of this neighborhood.

  • Nick

    Is there a political reason the MTA refuses to admit that bicycle injuries and collisions are on the rise year after year? Maybe if they did, they would have to face the fact that the infrastructure they designed is not as great as all the press releases make it sound?
    Their answer is always deceptive: “injuries are down on a per capita basis” because there are more cyclists on the street.

    But when an ER doctor sees 350 cyclists 2 years ago, 400 last year, and 450 this year… does he say bicycle injuries down?

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry to hear about the accident. I wish the victim best of luck.

    Can you stop calling bike lanes “dangerous”? I ride a bike to work everyday and I don;t want to constantly explain to peers that it is perfectly safe to do so. It will probably cause me extra trouble if my wife read your article. Bicycle advocates are working hard to promote cycling as a safe and health mean of transportation. Your characterization can only undermine their effort. According to witness this is clearly an unfortunately accident. Why do you inject your opinion that is not supported from this particular incident. I don’t know what are you referring to as failure of design other than that all bike lanes are failures because it is possible to get into accident.

  • It’s true that cycling overall isn’t shown to be more risky than a lot other activities that we do. However, here it feels much more dangerous than it should, and the crashes that do happen are mostly preventable with better design. We can’t ignore that bike lanes like these squeeze you into the most dangerous place to be – between the door zone and moving cars, where you’re the least visible and subject to a ton of conflicts. Deluding people that these are a safe place to be is criminal in my mind. (Honestly, there should be warning signs on facilities like these like the ones we put on practically every other product made for human use in America to avoid lawsuits.) How else can we look at the root problem of this crash and find solutions? If we ignore environmental design factors, how will we ever get the people that still aren’t cycling because they don’t feel safe on Valencia?

    Yes, you are right that that is the failure – unnecessarily subjecting riders to the dangers imposed by automobiles instead of placing safety first and minimizing the risks. As discussed below, in a better design with more space and physical separation, he probably wouldn’t have fallen under the car.

  • jd, I think the observation that drivers unnecessarily use streets with more life on them, despite possibly having to travel slower and having more to watch out for, points to an interesting idea. I wonder this about Market Street too, where the amount of unnecessary driving has been made clear with the forced turns. The only explanation I can think of is that these places are attractive to all people – whether they’re in a car, on a bike, or getting there by transit. But obviously, there are problems with subjecting such streets to car traffic just because they want some scenery on the way, and it’s silly to continue it this way.

  • mike

    First, great to hear the cyclist will survive this horrendous crash. The city needs more separated facilities, but in the best designed cities for bicyclists, people still ride next to traffic. I’ve ridden on mile after mile of raised cycletrack in Copenhagen and Amsterdam that were…hold your breath…right next to moving traffic. In some ways, the raised curb could be viewed as more dangerous than a stripe because it would cause you to lose control if you rolled off of it. Let’s discuss improved facilities in a more reasoned way.

  • Cycle tracks in Copenhagen are typically 8 feet wide with no parking on the right. That’s a substantially larger amount of room, allowing riders to mostly stay to the right while others to pass on the left. Not really having to worry about cars at all, it is much easier to stay in control, as well (I’m sure you know, it can actually be very relaxing).

    Does this guy look like he’s about to fall into the road, even with his baggage? http://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/5595579799/in/photostream

  • jd

    Sorry,

    It comes down to: where do you want to draw the line. Sure, your suggestions (driving 10 mph, for example) would make things safer but are unrealistic. I would add to that making drivers wear essentially hockey equipment (that would be funny though). So where do you draw the line? That is the debate we are actually having here. You think cyclists having 5 feet of space to ride between doors swinging open from parked cars and fast-moving cars, often blocked by double-parkers, is good enough. I don’t. I don’t think it’s that hard to put the bicycle lane on the other side of the parked cars and create the extra space, on Valenica for example, by getting rid of that stupid center/left-turning lane. Nobody has to give up anything.

    See, here’s the thing: our roads were simply not designed with bicycles in mind. You argue like the half-ass bicycle infrastructure measures we’ve tried to make in the past decade or so (sharrows, unprotected bike lanes, etc) were somehow well-thought out. Like people designing roads decades ago sat down and said, “Now, since I’ll be riding my bike here, let’s make sure we make it safe for bicyclists.” But they didn’t do that. Instead, their mantra was: how can we make sure traffic flows as efficiently as possible? If you actually design *with* bicycles in mind, your streets look very different from ours and look more like Copenhagen’s or Amsterdam’s. You are trying to argue that somehow what we have is as good as it gets and trying to compare it to a car going 10 mph. That is not the right comparison because that is way to extreme. I much more fair comparison would be going back to the 1960s and saying: cars should have seat belts. And people would argue that hey, if drivers just paid attention and didn’t get in accidents in the first place, they wouldn’t need them. But society has agreed that the extra work needed to get seatbelts used is well worth any trade-offs. It is the same with bike lanes. Our current incarnations of them are complete after-thoughts, and for very little trade-offs (other than some up-front thought and consideration), we can make them *much* safer.

  • Brooke dubose

    My thoughts are with your family, and for this man’s recovery. What he went through was incredibly scary, though I thank the lord that his injuries were not even worse. Please let us know how his recovery progresses.

  • jd

    Aaron: interesting point. I think you’re right: the drivers want livable cities too … they just don’t connect the dots that their “experiencing” of a livable city is detracting from that very quality. It’s kinda like how we decided to put a highway (Highway 1) along just about the entire amazingly scenic coast of California. People want to “experience” the beauty, but by building the road which allows them to “experience” it from their car, all kinds of development (and noise, pollution, etc.) followed, which then immediately detracts from the beauty that attracted them in the first place (to me, it seems the best solution would have been compromising, allowing, say 1/3 of the coast to have the freeway and the rest free of any road).

    This is one of my main problems with the car: it brings out the worst in human behavior. It makes us very selfish and short-sighted. We essentially are shooting ourselves in the foot, though it’s unfortunately not that obvious because the effects are so long-term and complicated. We don’t understand this, let alone acknowledge it, and hence the reason the explosion of the automobile in our culture has been so utterly devastating both to our health and that of the environment. If instead, we were to realize that a car has its uses and can be very good for certain things, but on the other hand is very dangerous, inefficient, and brings out the worst in human behavior, I believe we would “wield” them much more appropriately and carefully.

    Here’s my thing … I think people are creatures of habit and you just get used to whatever you grow up with. If you grow up driving a car everywhere, that’s just what you are used to and you think it feels good and you claim to enjoy it. I know lots of people who claim they enjoy driving (I just had a funny conversation with a friend who tried to explain to me that driving was somehow better for your mind than riding in a train, even though you can relax, read, whatever on a train). But I think that if they experienced another alternative with which to compare their driving of the car (say living in a city that is super livable and you can easily and safely walk or bike everywhere), they would find out they like it better. In other words, they think they know what is best for them, but if they haven’t tried anything else, how do they really know? And this is the perspective I find most people who live car-centric lives come from. On the other hand, those that have given other options a try, these are the people that, though they may use a car (even frequently), they realize there are a lot of downsides to cars and we should design our cities accordingly to make sure we minimize their use.

    The city needs to start a campaign to educate drivers that they should avoiding driving on pedestrian and bike corridors like Valencia, Market St, the Wiggle, etc. I think most drivers are completely oblivious to what they are doing and it doesn’t even cross their mind that cutting through a quiet residential area is a problem (again: hence the reason cars bring out the worst in us). But if the word starts getting out, I think most people are reasonable and will try to avoid these areas. And at that point, once you massively cut back on traffic on these corridors, it’s *much* easier to eventually make them car free, or at least have bollards/dead-ends so that there can be no thru-traffic. That is what I think we really need in our cities; cars don’t need access to every damn block.

  • The idea pictured of just moving parked cars out as a barricade and keeping cyclists and pedestrians apart from moving traffic seems easy and safe. It seems obvious when you think about it.

  • Anonymous

    I fell on a cycle track in Vienna because I didn’t see the raised edge next to the sidewalk. There is no perfect bicycle facility, but that cycle track was very nice and safe once I figured out to stay away from both edges. Ditto for the bike lanes on Valencia, which are pretty great and a vast improvement over the four lane road of 15 years ago.

    Riding slowly is the best safety device in my opinion.

  • Nick

    Interesting: “Riding slowly is the best defense.”

    I very much agree. Do any of the bike routes in the city actually encourage this practice? I’ve found most people ride at a breakneck speed for whatever reason.

  • Valencia encourages this with the 13 MPH Green Wave

  • Valencia encourages this with the 13 MPH Green Wave

  • You know what else plays a big role in dangerous street conditions that cause accidents? Distracted people. Bicyclists using phones/mp3 players…see it everyday. Bicyclists using crosswalks as their refuge…see it everyday. Bicyclists without brakes on their bikes…see it everyday. DMV REGISTRATION/INSPECTION FOR BICYCLES NOW!!

  • Friday night a motorist followed a line of cars onto the Caltrain tracks at Charleston in Palo Alto. The cars in front were stuck in traffic, and the car got blocked onto the tracks when the crossing arm came down. The car was hit at 70+ MPH, the car was destroyed. Horribly, the female driver was killed, her husband escaped, and was seen from the train car I was riding in frantically running around the crushed car.

    There is a statement from Caltrain in this article.
    http://www.ktvu.com/news/27565140/detail.html
    Bartholomew said that Caltrain has “an ongoing commitment to improve safety on the railroad” and continues working with the VTA on grade crossing improvements throughout Santa Clara County.

    Those improvements, she said, will make eight crossings safer for pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles by incorporating modified crossing gates, newly installed guardrails, fences, and pedestrian and emergency swing gates, among other features.

    This not to mention substantially more expensive projects to separate the grade completely – $150 million at San Bruno right now.

    The driver made an error, just like the cyclist. Manipulating Valencia would not prevent cyclists from making errors but could reduce the cost of said errors. For a tiny fraction of the costs we are putting into grade separation – granted grade separation at Charleston Friday night would not only have saved a life but thousands of hours of people’s time.

  • BeyondSF

    An ER doctor, whose deductive qualities are far superior to those encountered here, would conclude (with access to current data sets) that the increase in ER visits by bicyclists directly relates to the increased numbers of bicyclists in recent years. Don’t use data to confuse and obfuscate.

  • A speed limit, a lane width, a signal priority. None have anything to do with preventative safety measures adopted by a responsible bicyclist. If a bicyclist is involved in an accident and is found to have incorporated no safety equipment into the bicycle, and then injures a pedestrian, should they not be arrested for second-degree assault? Is the bicyclist willingly and knowingly operating an illegal conveyance in the public realm, and then also be willing to accept the responsibility for the decision to ride anyway?

    Let’s be accountable for ourselves.

    Drivers, hang up and lay off the horn. Pedestrians, don’t take a ‘leap of faith’ and pray you’re seen. And bicyclists, please install the standard safety equipment required by law, and stop flaunting your individuality at the cost of others’ confusion as to your course or intention.

    Drive, bike, and walk with intention and engagement. 4-way stops could be the new Fourgy. I watch too much porn on the weekends.

  • Kathy_94107

    I absolutely will. I think this may be the same accident announced in class today, and I have been thinking about both of them all day and trying to send them all positive thoughts. We are merely acquantances, or student/teacher, but she’s one of my favorite people to see.

  • Nick

    Stop being such an apologist, beyondSF.

    By the same logic, gas prices are down because a car’s mpg rating has increased year after year. Any idiot car driver with deductive reasoning half as good as yours should be happy to pay $4.50 a gallon, right?

    And us dumb bicyclists should be happy that our friends are getting inured less on a per capita basis as well!

  • Ge

    Except there’s less room to maneuver when passengers exit the parked cars, and while the Danish street looks nicely swept, budget cuts will force all the nasty road debris into the Danish bike lane (currently the debris in the Valenica design goes with the parked motor vehicles).

    And the case in Manhatten with the separated bike ways is that space looks like a even nicer parking spot- leaving cyclist in greater danger than before.

    Basically, a distracted cyclists lucked out after falling.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Eyes on the Street: On-Street Bike Parking Striped on Valencia Street

|
The future home of the city’s newest on-street bicycle parking. Photos: Matthew Roth. Preparations began today for the installation of new on-street bicycle parking on Valencia Street in former bus zones, which were vacated when the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency terminated the 26-Valencia line. The SFMTA’s paint crews painted on-street bike parking spaces in […]

Motorist Hits Cyclist in Valencia Street Bike Lane

|
One of San Francisco’s most popular bicycle thoroughfares was the scene of a crash on Tuesday, when an automobile incautiously pulled out of a parking spot and struck a bicyclist riding in the bike lane on Valencia Street near 20th Street. Valencia Street’s bike lane. Flickr photo: mary jane watson According to the police report, the […]

The Family That Rides Together

|
The Rileys on Valencia Street at Cesar Chavez Street, near the start of their long journey to school and work. Photos: Matthew Roth When trying to find San Francisco parents who take their kids to school by bike or on foot, we often hear this refrain: It’s all well and good to ride your bike […]