“Bike Yield” Passes Without Enough Votes for Veto Override

Photo: SFBC/Flickr
Photo: SFBC/Flickr

The Bike Yield ordinance was heard by the full San Francisco Board of Supervisors yesterday. It passed, with six “ayes” and five against — two “ayes” short of what’s needed to override Mayor Edwin Lee’s veto pen.

The San Francisco Examiner reports that mayoral spokesperson Christine Falvey was ready with a response. “The mayor believes this endangers pedestrians and other cyclists and he said he will veto it in the interest of public safety,” Falvey said right after the vote.

The legislation would instruct the police to make ticketing cyclists who cautiously roll through a stop sign, while still yielding to others, a low priority. Yet District 2 Supervisor Mark Farrell said he was voting against it because he doesn’t want an “Idaho Stop,” referring to that state’s traffic laws, which allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. He noted that San Francisco is denser than Idaho.

Idaho isn’t the only place that gives cyclists more discretion at traffic control devices, however. Paris also permits cyclists to do rolling stops in some locations. In fact, Paris even allows cyclists to treat some red lights as yields. Paris is roughly three times denser than San Francisco.

Supervisor Scott Weiner, a sponsor of the bill, tried to get the arguments back on point, reminding others that the ordinance can’t change state traffic laws, and was written to dissuade cops from cracking down on cautious cyclists. “I don’t think that’s how we should be using our law enforcement resources while people are getting hit and dying on our streets,” he said.

“When there’s an anti-bicycle bias within the police — and it’s not just one or two cops—it’s counter to Vision Zero,” said Supervisor Eric Mar, who was also trying to focus the debate back on the purpose of the ordinance. “Unsafe bicycling is an issue but compared to the culture of speeding in cars, it’s like night and day.”

The supes will vote again on January 12. Then the mayor has until January 22 to veto. The Board of Supervisors can override, but as a legislative deputy at City Hall explained about Tuesday’s vote: “Whatever happens today will signal the fate of the Bike Yield law. If Farrell or Peskin join those in opposition, then it won’t have the votes to survive a veto.”

So it doesn’t look like this legislative remedy for poor SFPD enforcement priorities is going to pan out. But the question of how to tailor traffic laws to account for the differences between bikes has newfound prominence, and yesterday’s vote showed there’s significant political support for change. This won’t be the last time that adjusting the current rules comes up for debate.

  • CamBam415

    Checkmate. You argued yourself into a corner and lost. Typical hypocritical troll.

    Funny how you’ve made negative comments on every post here and then make fun of me for responding to your ignorant comments.

    If Lee vetos bike yield this go around, it will be back and with strong support. Sorry you can’t handle that.

  • PaleoBruce

    Yes, words matter. Framing the issue as “people who use bicycles for transportation” gets much less negative political reaction than “bicyclists”.

    http://bikeleague.org/content/moving-beyond-bikelash

  • Izsak

    Whatever fits your narrative. Merry Xmas.

  • @HuckieCA – I’m not personally interested in adding new signs, but there is an MUTCD-approved “Except Bicycles” sign, which you can already find in use in San Francisco.

  • @gneiss – There’s no ordinance in any event. There was no public input, but there was a dog-and-pony show in front of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee in which a taxi driver with a disability misrepresented the ADA to them.

  • @Izsak – It’s not just a slogan to run to one’s dictionary to parse pedantically, it’s an actual policy that describes the amount of focus involved, and Sanford falls far short of the stipulated metric.

    As for “community concerns,” that is certainly his stated pretext for the Wiggle stings. However, when members of the community complain about cars doing the same thing, he blows them off with condescending and unprofessional accusations that their “minds are made up.”

  • Izsak

    Zuh? Stop at stop sign, just.

  • M.

    Funny, Izsak. Among other things, he consulted with opponents to street safety on Polk – for a fee.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Mayor Vetoes Bike Yield But Advocates Must Never Yield to Regressive Politics

|
Mayor Edwin Lee officially vetoed the “Bike Yield” ordinance yesterday. Without enough votes to override, supporting supervisors will have to figure out a compromise plan, such as a pilot project. The bill’s author, Supervisor John Avalos, already prepared for that contingency. Not surprisingly, Avalos was frustrated with the Mayor’s veto. “SFPD has focused traffic enforcement […]

Monday: Your Chance to Speak on the Bike Yield Law

|
On Monday at 1:30 p.m., the land use and transportation committee of the SF Board of Supervisors is going to discuss the Bike Yield Law at City Hall. This is an important opportunity to speak up for common-sense bike and traffic enforcement policies. The ordinance would instruct San Francisco police to, in practice, adopt an “Idaho Stop” […]

Mayor Lee Vows to Veto Bike Yield Law

|
Updated at 6:46 p.m. with image of Mayor’s veto letter at the bottom. Mayor Ed Lee has vowed to veto the “Bike Yield Law” put forward by six supervisors. Assuming the mayor follows through, it will take a vote from eight of the 11 supervisors to override him. In a comment to the SF Chronicle, Lee showed that […]

Bike Yield Law Passes Transportation Committee

|
Yesterday the Land Use & Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to instruct SFPD to, in effect, allow cyclists in San Francisco to treat stop signs as yields. The proposal will now go before the full San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Dec. 15. Supervisors John Avalos and Scott Wiener voted “aye” on the […]