Today’s Headlines

  • SFMTA Delays SFPark Expansion in Potero/Dogpatch for More Outreach (SFGateMission Local)
  • Townsend Street Car Parking Ample With Meters in Place (SFGate)
  • SFPD Stopping Cyclists Running Red Lights on Market (Uptown Almanac)
  • Diagonal Parklet on Noriega Street is Full of Life (San Franciscoize)
  • KALW Interviews SF Bike Coalition’s Leah Shahum (Transpo Nation)
  • Pedestrian Killed in Oakland Had Been Passenger in Car Impounded Earlier by Police (Alameda Patch)
  • Homeless Advocate Arrested at Castro Plaza Protesting Proposed Laws (SFGate, BCN via SF Ex)
  • Muir Woods Shuttle Fare is Heading Up (Marin IJ)
  • SMART Repeal Effort Officially Fails, Clearing Way for Accelerated Construction (Press Democrat)
  • Governor Brown Says Cap-and-Trade Fees Will Fund High-Speed Rail (SacBee)
  • Governor Brown Announces CEQA Reforms (CP&DR)
More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill
  • mikesonn

    That SFGate write up is an embarrassment.

    Look at them, fighting the man!
    http://goo.gl/rvQj0

  • mikesonn

    Looking at this map from SFGate ( http://goo.gl/a6vPJ ). I wonder why they put the 4th/King Caltrain station but not the 22nd one. Interesting.

  • Anonymous

    I see the cops and their limited resources are being spent on making sure bicyclists don’t run through stop signs on the Wiggle (see end of “SFPD Stopping Cyclists Running Red Lights on Market” article). This is great, since we all know cyclists on the Wiggle are one of the greatest safety risks to pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists themselves as the statistics certainly bear out, right? I mean, it’s certainly not about cops wasting limited resources to make a point that cyclists must follow laws designed without a single concern for cyclists in a dangerously car-centric urban design, even though more people cycling (even if they run pointless stop signs) is a huge net benefit to society. Nope. This is truly about cops doing what is best for the safety of our city, not personifying an anachronistic bias due to their entire career being trapped in a car. And of course, the cops have the statistics on their side to back up their point: cyclists have caused untold amounts of death, pain, suffering, pollution, and general unhealthiness.

    I mean, right? Doesn’t this make perfect sense?

  • Perhaps the only way to point out this stupidity is to put a sales tax measure on the ballot, with all funds used to provide additional SFPD officers to ticket cyclists. Do you consider this problem to be so bad that you would pay more taxes to solve it? Of course the answer would be a resounding no. But that is no different than using current tax dollars to ticket cyclists instead of any number of other things we could do with that money.

    Of course, they would say “the tickets would pay for the cops”, in which case I say we use the same strategy against double parkers.

  • Actually I get really sick of cyclists running red lights* — Folsom and 4th, Howard and Hawthorne being two of the pedestrian-heavy intersections I stop at. Almost nothing is more annoying than stopping at these lights where pedestrians have right-of-way only to have a cyclist blow by me on either side. Not only is it rude, dangerous to fellow cyclists and pedestrians, but it doesn’t save any time given that all the lights are timed.
    If the enforcement is part of a larger effort to get people to pay more attention to their surroundings then I don’t see anything wrong with this.

    * stop signs where there is no conflicting traffic is another matter, before anyone brings that up.

  • peternatural

    Last week’s SFBG article seems more balanced:
    http://www.sfbg.com/2012/01/24/pay-park

  • peternatural

    The real issue isn’t so much running stop signs… it’s that smug sense of entitlement that sticks in the craw (or so I hear 😉

  • Anonymous

    @google-c1054b713ae4d63cc3ebaf620c20fb35:disqus Per your footnote, I agree that it is not okay for cyclists (or motorists, or pedestrians) to be running red lights when there is heavy traffic. That’s just stupid behavior regardless of the mode of transit. When there’s heavy traffic at intersection, everybody needs to chill out and wait for their turn, and certainly cyclists can’t just be blasting through. And agreed that the hierarchy of priority is pedestrians, cyclists, then motorists — each must yield to the ones above it. Cyclists should have pedestrians always on their mind.

    My problem is with empty intersections, especially ones so heavily traveled like on the Wiggle. Cops enforcing “full stops” there is just ridiculously petty and irresponsible since it does nothing to increase safety and just discourages people from riding (which is a huge net loss for the safety and healthy of our society at-large).

    Market St is somewhere in between. If there’s traffic — pedestrian, motorists, or cyclists — people can’t be running red lights. But if the light is about to change and there is no traffic of any sort, and the cyclist has already slowed down so they have enough “dwell time” in the intersection to see that’s it clear, who really cares? We certainly shouldn’t be wasting police manpower on it. So I’m ambivalent about enforcement on this street. But the Wiggle … that’s another story …

  • mikesonn

    Agreed, but the Chron (this is an assumption) has a much higher readership than the SFBG.Both comment sections leave much to be desired though, so they have that in common.

  • marcos

    @jd_x:disqusThe MTA just approved a strategic plan.  One of the elements in that plan was safety.  The three objectives there all involved policing Muni.  I made a motion at the MTA CAC to urge the staff and the MTA Board to incorporate this language into the Safety section:

    Objective 1.4 Improve safety for pedestrians, disabled people and cyclists

    Key Performance Indicator: successful  identification of and  reduction in injuries and deaths on dangerous pedestrian and bicycle facilities

    Staff did not incorporate this into what it presented to the MTA Board.  The CAC chair presented our motion to the MTA Board.  The  MTA Board passed what staff presented without amendment or comment.

    Ideally, safety from an enforcement and built environment standpoint would be programmed from epidemiology data provided by the DPH and refined as new data came in.  Evaluation of success would be data-driven.  Creating this positive feedback loop that where MTA priorities are public health driven is a the best way I’ve come up with to make emerging modalities safer and more attractive.

  • marcos

    Former Supervisor Dufty repping Caltrain said last night that MTA did not consult with Caltrain on the Townsend meters that were installed in 1/2011.  Caltrain ridership numbers showed a 5.6% increase in AM peak SB boardings from 4th and King and a 11.2% increase in same boardings at 22d Street.  That is statistically significant and shows motorists displaced from Townsend swarming on 22d.

    There are already laws on the books to prevent RVs from occupying parking spaces for too long, laws that don’t appear to be enforced.  Sometimes they should not be enforced as tough economic times mean people might have to actually live in their RV’s.  But for mere storage, they should be enforced.

    The MTA realizes that they have to work with the community on issues like this, and that can only bode well for creating the climate of trust that we’re going to need if we’re going to get the political capital together to make Muni an attractive option and drive mode shift.

    And it appears that the Cat Ex might be vulnerable as its exemption is to gather data.  The MTA did not take baseline data on the alleged circling congestion generator, nor did it take data on parking space turnover rates.  It would be very difficult for them to evaluate a pilot plan absent baseline data.  And if increased availability of parking indeed induces mode shift from transit to cars, then the congestion impacts of that project need to go through an EIR.  The Planning Department is already affirming statements of overriding significance for transit delay, we don’t need the MTA piling on to slow Muni.

    Market pricing for parking is not just market pricing of parking to increase availibility, which is an effective inrease in parking supply, which runs against cityu policy because it snarls transit.  The Muni not providing reliable service to Caltrain and then the MTA installing meters to discourage first mile auto trips elicits mode shift from transit over the Caltrain mainlne.

    Just because the goals of market pricing are good goals does not relieve the MTA of having to consider how the nuts and bolts of a program runs counter to its stated mission and taking steps to mitigate the impacts of those negative unintended consequences.

  • mikesonn

    Example:

    Driver on free parking: “Oh, there is free parking at my destination, I’m going to drive since Muni is slow and costs me $2 ($4 r/t) and I plan on staying for several hours. I have great parking karma this week so there will be a spot.”

    Driver on metered parking: “Hm, I’ll have to pay $2/hr (for several hours) to park in that neighborhood. Maybe I’ll take Muni, which might take a little longer but end up costing me less.”

    @86883e1d8289f5b704d6504ff6f52ab9:disqus said “Market pricing for parking is not just market pricing of parking to increase availibility, which is an effective inrease in parking supply”

    Possibly, but if a driver measures costs (parking vs Muni fare) then free parking wins out way more often. However, when direct costs of parking vs Muni are realized, then Muni at least has a chance.

  • mikesonn

    Solving SFPark app’s hands free issues, hmm:

    http://www.voicepark.org/ 

  • marcos writes…
    Caltrain ridership numbers showed a 5.6% increase in AM peak SB
    boardings from 4th and King and a 11.2% increase in same boardings at
    22d Street.  That is statistically significant

    Correct…

    and shows motorists
    displaced from Townsend swarming on 22d.

    You skipped a lot of dots there cowboy.

    There are numerable actual attributable reasons for those numbers.
    1) Caltrain increased bike capacity by 2x. Prior to this, cyclists were using 4th and King to avoid being bumped at 4th. With the bumping problem (temporarily) alleviated, riders have switched from 4th to 22nd, which LOWERS the numbers for 4th while INCREASING the numbers for 22nd. It’s also brought back riders who were using 22nd Street but gave up on the train completely. Borne out by stats – ridership increases for Caltrain have been heaviest for cyclists, and heaviest at 22nd.

    2) Overall growth in the Silicon Valley economy. Traffic on SB 101 has become extremely bad over the last 2 years. This is why Caltrain’s ridership is up overall despite cuts in service and increases in fares – workers are turning to the train to escape traffic. Those workers live in Potrero/Bernal/Noe/Mission because of the proximity to the freeway – and when they turn to Caltrain they are going to use 22nd Street.

  • marcos

    @mikesonn:disqus  San Francisco is an increasingly affluent city, price sensitivity tends to be less than time and convenience sensitivity.  If we lessen convenience then transit has more of a chance.

    @twitter-14678929:disqus of course there are many moving parts that make snapshot data difficult to interpret.  22d Street is not easy to get to by bike for many people.  When was bike capacity increased at 22d?  Dufty indicated that Caltrain was getting complaints from disaffected riders.  When I used to drive to work down that way, I’d take I-280 at speed and drive in from the west on CA-92.

    There were only 2220 AM boardings from 4th and King, 870 from 22d.  That’s 3090 SB trips.  Caltrain is and remains a toy train as far as SF originating commutes goes.

    In both cases, there is a fair argument of environmental impacts due to mode shift and in order to do no harm, at the very least the MTA should have studied the nature of these impacts for their own sake because their job is to promote transit first, at most an EIR should have been done.

  • marc – ya know, I’m not sure if this is worth going over with you. Your question shows a basic lack of knowledge of the workings, demographics, etc… of Caltrain. That, and you don’t read what is written – your questions don’t show curiousity, they show, well I don’t know what.

    “Bike Capacity” does not have anything to do with any particular station. There is bike capacity on the train. Once the train is full, nobody else gets on. Nobody gets off at 22nd Street after boarding at 4th. So if they train is full at 4th, nobody gets to get on at 22nd Street, and you are left behind. Once this happens to you often enough, you ride the extra mile or two to 4th and King to get on the train for sure. This costs 5 minutes ride time for me, and I have to get to 4th 5 minutes earlier than I would have to were I able to board at 22nd. With the extra space on the train, bumping stopped at 22nd, so the riders started using 22nd again.

    280 is getting backed up too, especially from Ocean to the 380 split. And no matter the speed, if you are headed to say, Linked In (next to Google), 280 adds 15+ miles to your trip, and you still have to sit in gridlock on 85. If you work in Foster City, at Facebook, etc… If it gets to the point for those people that 280 is faster than 101, their commute has already been extended by 20-30 minutes, and Caltrain becomes very competitive, especially if you work near a Caltrain station, few of which are easily accessible via 280 (downtown Palo Alto? the 280 backup on Sand Hill or Page Mill is ridonkulous).

  • Guest

    I’m personally glad that some cyclists are being cited.  I ride on the panhandle, Wiggle, and Market.  Earlier this week, a cyclist passed me on the left and told me to look left and behind before I swerve to avoid something in my path.  Hello?  Did that cyclist assume that I swerve for fun?  The last time I checked, it is the passing bike’s responsibility to ensure that there’s a path for them to pass.  I also see plenty of blatant stop sign running at Haight and Scott, and nobody can argue that Haight is a quiet street.  Nobody likes to mention rampant red light running at 12th/Market either, and I don’t even see the point because you can still make the light at Market/Van Ness if you wait for the green at 12th.

    Regarding Townsend Street parking, SFpark is a joke.  Why is it that parking occupancy can be measured so accurately before the meters were installed, and after the meters are installed (and nobody’s parking) is it so difficult to get occupancy data?  Isn’t the premise of SFpark to measure occupancy using high-tech sensors and adjust prices accordingly?  If that’s the case, then shouldn’t occupancy be at the forefront of the program’s data collection?  Of course, anyone who visits the Caltrain station knows that entire blocks are empty.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure the occupancy is near zero.  Is it possible that the appropriate price is less than what it costs to install, operate, maintain, and enforce the meters in the first place?

    If I were the dogpatch residents, I would use Townsend Street as the perfect example of why not to have meters installed.  If SFpark cannot provide occupancy data so close to downtown, how is it able to do such data collection further south?

  • Guest

    If SFpark actually works, isn’t an app unnecessary since there should be parking available on every block?

  • mikesonn

    “San Francisco is an increasingly affluent city, price sensitivity tends to be less than time and convenience sensitivity.  If we lessen convenience then transit has more of a chance.”

    I thought drivers were poor and cash strapped and that metering would break their backs. The argument keeps changing.

     “Caltrain is and remains a toy train as far as SF originating commutes goes.”

    This comment. Wow.

  • marcos

    @mikesonn:disqus “I thought drivers were poor and cash strapped and that metering would break their backs. The argument keeps changing.”

    Nobody ever is going to say that subtlety of analysis is your strong suit.

    Increasingly affluent means that the city as a whole is getting wealthier.  The North Mission is gentrifying rapidly, but there still remain some long term lower income residents who are auto dependent to get to their blue collar jobs that were displaced by gentrification.

    @86883e1d8289f5b704d6504ff6f52ab9:disqus ‘”Caltrain is and remains a toy train as far as SF originating commutes goes.”‘

    @mikesonn:disqus  This comment. Wow.”

    Let’s see ~3000 daily SB AM peak boardings compared to > 700K at Muni and tens of thousands of AM outbound SF boardings on BART.   The 38 Geary ridership dwarfs that of all of Caltrain.  More people ride a podunk like like the 52 Excelsior than board Caltrain SB AM Peak at 4th and King.

    @twitter-14678929:disqus “marc
    – ya know, I’m not sure if this is worth going over with you. Your
    question shows a basic lack of knowledge of the workings, demographics,
    etc… of Caltrain. That, and you don’t read what is written – your
    questions don’t show curiousity, they show, well I don’t know what.”

    What it shows is that Caltrain is like a candle in the dark, it illuminates everything right around the candle and little more.  The first and last mile problem inhibit Caltrain and until those issues are resolved, Caltrain is a toy train system as far as SB AM commutes go.  The flexibility to have a car to run errands during lunch time down in suburbia has to be taken into account as well.

    I know that Caltrain worship is an article of faith amongst the disciples, and represents the flip side of BART hatred.

  • marcos

    @mikesonn:disqus further on price sensitivity, the North Mission is well below median SF/area income.  Those who come to our neighborhood from other SF neighborhoods, in-bound trips, to take advantage of our amenities are by definition more likely to be of higher incomes and have more disposable income and to view their time as more valuable than market priced parking. 

    Neighborhood residents who in general generate out-bound trips are in general of lower income than the SF/area median.  And in general they tend to keep their cars parked overnight. 

    City policy opposes increasing supply of parking which is equivalent to increasing availability and supports managing curbside parking for existing residents.

  • Is there a specific question about the Townsend Street parking occupancy?  I’ve been recording the SFPark data feed, so I should be able to tally what the sensors have been recording.

  • Oh, it looks like the reason they couldn’t say what the occupancy rate is for the 400 and 500 blocks of Townsend is that the SFPark API is not actually reporting any information about those blocks.  That is pretty ridiculous for a parking program whose entire premise is to make adjustments based on measuring demand.

  • mikesonn

    Exactly, that is why I assumed they weren’t metered yet. I was looking at SFPark.org and there isn’t any data being reported west of 5th. Does that mean they are only not reporting it or aren’t even collecting it as well?

  • marcos

    What do you mean, running red lights?  Is advancing on the cross street yellow to secure a spot in the lane if there is no cross traffic running a red light?  Is entering into the very wide north side of the 4th and Market intersection from the east on the green and entering the west crosswalk as or after the signal turns red, where peds never ever check for yellow light stragglers running a red light?  Is riding through the tame end of a T intersection on the red really running a red light?

  • Anonymous

    @86883e1d8289f5b704d6504ff6f52ab9:disqus It’s the Idaho Stop Laws: red lights are essentially stop-and-then-yield-if-necessary signs, and stop signs are yield signs. If I’m a cyclist on Market with a red, I yield to *cross-traffic*, be it pedestrians, other cyclists, or motorists. That means not blocking the cross-walk or the cross-road or the cross-bike lane. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter what I do.

    Your whole nit-picking on what the rules are is the problem. Since the introduction of cars and the ensuing proliferation of signs and traffic signals, we have become idiots when it comes to navigating our streets. Nobody uses their head and pays attention, especially those who can cause the most damage (motorists). We just want signs to tell us what to do and to stop thinking, and this attitude has led to current urban design where cars dominate and hence our city streets are dangerous and far from “livable” (loud, grimy, dangerous, and full on angry motorists pissed about everything and everyone that gets in their god-given right to be where they want as fast as possible and to hell with all consequences).

    It has been shown that, when all signs are removed (even though it is surprisingly counter-intuitive to our our car-centric mindset) it gives great results:

    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html
    http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AT=0&AID=1234

    Rather, think of like this: for millennia civilization has had cities with hundreds of thousands of people (sometimes millions) and never needed traffic signs, traffic lights, and all these crazy rules. So what changed? Answer: cars were introduced to the mix, and because they were so disproportionately heavier, faster, less nimble, more powerful, and disorientating for their operators, a whole new system of urban design had to be created to accommodate them and not cause mass causalities (although ironically they still do … one of the true failures of modern urban design is this fact).

    But the pedestrian-only case is just an example of one extreme (the other being the car-only suburbs of post-WWII). Unless we ban cars entirely, then we need some sort of rules so we can all interact with them. Further, bicycles, though much nearer to pedestrians on the continuum between pedestrians at one end and cars on the other, also require laws and signs for determining right-of-way. But the point is: those laws are not the same as cars.

    Right now, the status quo was arrived at like this:

    1) We didn’t consider bicycles *unique* needs in our urban design and so stupidly lumped them in with cars and expect them to act like cars (even though they obviously can’t!)
    2) Bicyclists quickly realized the obvious insufficient safety (let alone convenience) this concept of bicycles-as-cars gives cyclists and hence protest saying they want their unique needs recognized.
    3) Time and time again, these needs are ignored and cyclists learn behavior which is intuitive to anyone riding a bike in order to adapt to the crappy scraps of urban design they have to negotiate through. An example of this behavior is realizing stopping at an empty intersection does nothing to determine right of way (the point of stop signs).
    4) Many motorists (most of those in charge of urban design) refuse to acknowledge the obvious differences between cars and bicycles and how bicyclists have been ignored in urban design and except them to follow rules which were written for cars (while ignoring bicycles) like they are commandments from god written in stone. These people hence claim that the entire point of view of the cyclists is completely irrelevant since all they want is anarchy and to not follow the laws of civilized society.

    The point is, laws can change, especially laws that were written by ignoring certain truths in life. To question these laws is one of the ways we make progress in civilized society. So just because it isn’t currently a law doesn’t mean that the argument that cyclists shouldn’t have to stop at stop signs with nobody around does not have merit.

  • Let’s see ~3000 daily SB AM peak boardings compared to > 700K at Muni

    1) you are counting round trips on MUNI but not caltrain
    2) you are only counting Caltrain boardings at the terminus, you are counting MUNI boardings everywhere
    3) The average MUNI trip is a mile. The average Caltrain trip is 35.

  • Earlier this week, a cyclist passed me on the left and told me to look
    left and behind before I swerve to avoid something in my path.

    http://www.velominati.com/blog/the-rules/

    Rule #59 Hold your line.
    Ride predictably, and don’t make sudden movements. And, under no circumstances, are you to deviate from your line.
     

  • peternatural

    marcos,

    “Is riding through the tame end of a T intersection on the red really
    running a red light?”

    Yes. It can be dangerous. Although there’s little chance of any conflict with another vehicle, you can still hit a pedestrian. That was the scenario last summer when a pedestrian was struck by a cyclist along the Embarcadero. (The pedestrian later died from her injuries).

    It can still be done safely. You just have to slow down to about a walking pace and make absolutely sure that there are no pedestrians around (or cops 😉

  • marcos

    @jd_x:disqus I’m familiar with the Idaho law.  My understanding was that they repealed it.  Ammiano’s office says there is no support in Sacramento to pass it in CA.  The Board of Supervisors and Mayor could pass a law, similar to the cannabis lowest priority law, that would place that at the bottom of the priority list for the SFPD but the SFPD is the honey badger, they’re badass and don’t give a shit, they just take what they want and that’s disgusting.

    Any bets on whether the SFBC would put their marquee bikeways aside for a moment to get the SFPD to act rationally?

    We don’t live in a car-free utopia right now, I understand full well how the built environment has been corrupted by cars.  I dream when I’m asleep and play the hand that we’re dealt during the daytime, not some imaginary hand we might be dealt in the future if we can move the population from here to there.

    @peternatural:disqus the first rule my parents taught me when I learned to drive at age 15 is that you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicle at all times.  They got that learning to drive in NY, so maybe its in the NY VC.  The CAVC has no similar provision that I’ve been able to find.  But no matter whether I’m biking or driving a carshare, that’s how I roll.  Most every time that I enter the 4th and Market intersection and the count is < 3, I end up having to swerve to the south at the west end of the intersection to thread the needle between pedestrians crossing from each side even though the law requires that they allow all traffic to pass that has entered the intersection legally before leaving the sidewalk.

    Given the numbers of cyclists and the numbers of peds injured and killed by cyclists, the risk is statistically insignificant because most all cyclists do the right thing.

  • marcos

     @twitter-14678929:disqus ”
    1) you are counting round trips on MUNI but not caltrain
    2) you are only counting Caltrain boardings at the terminus, you are counting MUNI boardings everywhere
    3) The average MUNI trip is a mile. The average Caltrain trip is 35.”

    Fine, construe all Caltrain numbers liberally and all Muni numbers conservatively and Caltrain is still a toy train set.

  • Anonymous

    @aab6d03eb78119ada48b049629f44938:disqus wrote: “The last time I checked, it is the passing bike’s responsibility to ensure that there’s a path for them to pass.”

    How about this scenario in a car (unfortunately, I’ve noticed there is little else in life that makes things clear for people than analogies to cars). You are driving in the middle of 3 lanes on a highway. You are passing somebody in the right lane. Suddenly, you see an object in your lane so you swerve to the left (since there is a car to your right) to avoid it. But whoops, you forgot to check your blind spot on your left where a car that was just about to pass you was, so you hit them. Who’s fault? It’s a no-brainer: it’s your fault because you can’t just change lanes without confirming it’s clear.

    Now, on a bike lane, I’ll give you it’s a little less clear because there aren’t two lanes for bike traffic. However, it is obvious that bicyclists can pass one another, and if the bicyclist in front is swerving without looking, this clearly makes it really dangerous for people to pass.

    The bottom line is: if you swerve to avoid something and hit a cyclist passing you, it’s your fault. I’m not saying the cyclists passing you shouldn’t be careful and try to anticipate your swerve if they see debris in your path. But in the end, if you can’t confirm it’s clear to swerve, then you need to stop, not just swerve and hope nobody is there.

    “I also see plenty of blatant stop sign running at Haight and Scott, and nobody can argue that Haight is a quiet street.”

    I lost you: what’s this got to do with quiet streets? Regardless, who cares if cyclists run stop signs there when the right-of-way is clear (for example, when nobody else is there, or when the cyclist is there long before somebody else)? It would be like people caring if somebody jaywalks after they make sure traffic is clear.

    You have to separate out what pisses you off just because you don’t like seeing people break laws (even though, as I’ve pointed out over and over in my posts on this site in the last day or so, that these laws were made utterly ignoring cyclists unique needs and concerns) and what truly is affecting the right-of-way at intersections and therefore dangerous. People love to conflate these two reasons for concern, but they require entirely different discussions. If say, a cyclist, is running a stop sign when right-of-way wasn’t clear or they didn’t even have it, then the cyclists is wrong and I have no problem with them getting ticketed (though cops need to ride bikes regularly to be able to understand the distinction). But if a cyclists goes through an empty intersection without stopping, clearly nobody’s safety was in danger, so if you care, you are just being a stickler for (silly) laws. The solution in that case is to change the laws.

  • Guest

    murphstahoe – Thank you for referencing a set of “rules”, most of which appear to be superficial and applicable to race conditions.  I’ll be sure to reset my quick-release levers more appropriately for photogenic purposes too.  I do agree with riding predictably, but the scenario I raised was of an unpredictable nature.

    jd_x – Since the panhandle is one lane in each direction, your 3 lane scenario doesn’t apply.  Since you like car examples so much, here’s one for you:

    California Vehicle Code 21750.  The
    driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding
    in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without
    interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle,
    subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.So in your example, if I can’t stop in time, I should simply just crash, rather than swerve and possibly not crash, right?  If someone opens their car door on Fell, where the bike lanes are painted within the door zone, I should crash into the door too, right?

  • @aab6d03eb78119ada48b049629f44938:disqus in your car-door scenario the at-fault party would be the driver, who failed to check that it was safe to open their door without interfering with oncoming traffic. Unfortunately, no one wins in that situation…

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today’s Headlines

|
Mayor Lee’s Cryptic Dismissal of Cars-First Prop L: “I’m Not Worried About it” (SFGate) SF Celebrates Its Ninth Park(ing) Day Today (CBS) Driver Plummets Over Cliff, Crashes into Yellow Taxi Lot in Potrero Hill (KRON) Stolen Car Driver Crashes Into Other Driver at Bryant and 18th, is in Critical Condition (Mission Local) Haight Street Contra-Flow Bus Lane, […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Muni On-Time Performance Rate Improved Slightly in September (SFExam) SF Planning Commission Approves Transbay Transit Center Tower (SFExam, SFGate) Ball Gets Rolling on Haight-Ashbury Street Improvement Planning Meetings (Uppercasing) With Parking Removal for Fell/Oak Bikeways, Haighteration Asks: Do We Need More RPP? Scooter Driver Injured in Car Crash at 16th and Capp Streets (Mission Local) […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Free Muni For Youth Could Arrive by Summer (SFGate) Downtown Bike Parking Requirement Legislation Headed to Supes Committee (SF Examiner) Four-Track Design Back On the Table for High-Speed Rail (Almanac Online) UC Santa Cruz Gathering Memorializes Student Who Died in Crash on Bike Path (Mercury News) Two Pedestrians Killed in San Jose Over Weekend (CBS […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Half of All SF Injuries from Car Crashes (SFExaminer) Charges Filed in BART Station Assault (SFChron) BART Rejects Underwear Ad (SFExaminer, SFGate) It Seems BART Needs More Janitors (SFGate, MercuryNews) Bay Area Commutes Worse than LA (EastBayTimes) Oakland’s Awful Pavement (SFGate) More on the Market Street Mood Meter (Hoodline) Bike East Bay Demands Caltrans Fix […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Community Meeting on Central Subway Pagoda Extraction Expected to Heat Up (SFGate) Red Light-Running Driver in Tenderloin Causes Car Crash, Hospitalizing Two Children (ABC) Salon on Hayes Valley’s Grove Street Petitions for Parklet (Hayeswire) Ammiano’s Bill AB 840 Would Make Drivers Swear to Knowing the Dangers of Distraction (SF Exam) Bay Bridge’s Bolt Problem Was Flagged Years […]

Today’s Headlines

|
SFMTA’s Bicycle Strategy Calls for $200 Million in Improvements Over Five Years (SF Exam) Active Transportation Advocates’ Petition Calls on Gov. Brown to Improve Walking and Biking Program Ticketed Enforcement of Sunday Parking Meters Seems to Start Off Smoothly (ABC 7) SF Chronicle: Removing Hwy 280 “Worth a Study”; and More on What it Means for the […]