As San Francisco moves closer to a decision on a new sit-lie ordinance that proponents say would facilitate the SFPD's clearing of unsavory elements off of sidewalks in neighborhoods like the Haight, resistance is building, and several organizers have called for a day of sidewalk action on Saturday March 27, from 10 am to 5 pm. I sat down recently with Nate Miller, one of the people who decided that they weren’t going to watch the City succumb to yet another pandering campaign of fear mongering without standing up to say no.

The sit-lie campaign has been orchestrated from behind the scenes for the past few months, trying to appear as a spontaneous grassroots effort by residents of the Haight-Ashbury. But as Miller tells it, there is strong evidence of coordination between “grassroots activists,” the Chronicle’s resident suburban attack dog C.W. Nevius, Mayor Newsom and Chief of Police Gascon. Together, they are using the decades-long presence of impoverished and annoying “gutter punks” on Haight Street to push a law criminalizing anyone who is sitting or lying on a sidewalk anywhere in San Francisco. Gabriel Haaland wrote an intelligent editorial in last week's Bay Guardian calling for a new approach to actual conflicts (greatly exaggerated in this case), rather than expanding the definition of so-called criminal behavior.

Here’s Nate in his own words: 

I grew up in San Francisco and lived here my whole life. For the past few months the Chronicle has been publishing really inflammatory articles talking about “thugs and bullies” in the Haight who are making it a living hell for residents, shoppers, and business people to exist there. The police have been talking about how this is a grassroots effort of the neighborhood, but the timing shows that is false. First the Chronicle starts drumming up all this stuff. Then they have the Mayor walk down the street when he’s supposedly undecided about this. He walks down the street with his baby, and supposedly sees a man sitting on the sidewalk smoking crack. Obviously it’s already illegal to smoke crack (and you can do it standing up!). He uses this to announce that we need to make it illegal to have people sitting on the sidewalk. Two days later he introduces legislation to the Board of Supervisors, already vetted by the City Attorney. He proposes two separate pieces of legislation. If you do anything in politics, you know that’s impossible [to get this done so quickly]. The Mayor must have been working on this since a long time ago.

The same day the Chamber of Commerce/Committee on Jobs does a poll that they claim shows there’s 71% support for a law outlawing sitting on the sidewalks. The question that they asked was not simply if you support a law that will make it illegal to sit or lie down on a sidewalk. It asked if you support a law that would arrest people who were harassing you. I’d support a law like that! I don’t want to be harassed. There are already laws against that. There’re laws against aggressive panhandling, against panhandling, against blocking the sidewalk, against smoking crack.

They say this is “a tool.” Supposedly “the police will use their discretion to use it appropriately.” Public Defender Jeff Adachi pointed out in a hearing that there were a lot of people that could be subjected to this law—tourists sitting on their luggage, students sitting on a sidewalk, homeless people—and all these people would be subject to $100 fine the first time, while repeat offenders could do 30 days in jail. The Chronicle’s Nevius said “that’s ridiculous, the cops would never arrest a tourist for sitting on their bag,” but the law states that it would be illegal to do that.

The argument made by Nevius and other Sit-Lie Law supporters is that the police can be trusted to implement this sweeping legal mandate in a reasonable manner. But the law defines a normal behavior, sitting on a sidewalk, as a crime!

Here’s Nate again:

Obviously the law will be used against the most vulnerable people. It’s a biological fact that some time during the day you’re going to need to rest. If you don’t have a home to do that in and you’re homeless you’ll have to sit on the sidewalk. I like sitting on the sidewalk! I just went to Vietnam and Cambodia to experience the vibrant, amazing things that go on in the streets. People are out there all day and it’s just a much better feeling. I feel a lot safer with a lot of people on the streets.

I think it’s a two-pronged approach. One is to scare people when they’re on Haight Street—just go shopping, minimize engagement with other people … (forget about people watching or anything else). This is also a serious effort by the Chamber of Commerce and conservative politicians to create a wedge issue for the November elections. That’s already playing out. You see people like Scott Weiner who is running for Supervisor in the Castro campaigning by saying “I support Sit and Lie because I care about public safety.” He can now run, playing to people’s fears that have been created by the Chronicle through all this fabrication, and make them feel safe.

There’s a lot of routes you can go besides this idea of “pre-crime,” that you can just make totally normal behavior illegal and then give the cops the discretion to punish people based on how they look or anything. Because if they’re not doing anything else illegal you are just arresting someone for sitting on the ground.

A few other people started talking about the broader implications of this law, that it is going to make it illegal to sit anywhere on the sidewalk. The first response was a very defensive one: hey, we’re under attack. But then we started talking about what we could do with this. What kind of conversations can we have?

Dangerous use of public space! Let's do it! (Photo: Kurt Bank)

Public space is important. On one hand there’s all these greening initiatives going on, but at the same time we’re trying to make it illegal to exist in public space, setting a really horrible precedent. We thought about Park(ing) Days, where people voluntarily occupy parking places and make them parks for a day, and people really enjoy it. We thought, why don’t we bring that on to the sidewalks for a day? We need to be encouraging more people to enjoy public space, to talk to each other, enjoying our vibrant and exciting city. Through talking about that we decided we were going to reach out to people who were interested in that. The basic idea is that anyone can bring out a table, or lawn chairs, or a mat, and do whatever you want, because it’s completely normal.

Bring yourselves and anything you like out to the street, and just relax. You can do whatever you want, argue with your family, party with your friends, make coffee for people. Some people are reclaiming the tea party idea and having a huge tea party. There’s going to be all kinds of fun things for people to go and see and engage with. We want people to contact us through the website we’re developing, or FB or email. Send us a location, a street corner where you will be situated. What time you’re going to be there, and a couple of sentences about what you think you’ll be doing. Afterward, we’re asking everyone to document it with a photo or a video, even a cellphone picture, and send it back to us. We’re creating a Google Map and hopefully there will be dozens or hundreds of locations where people were doing things. It will be a lot more cohesive after that.

Later on Saturday, March 27, everyone is going to Market and Castro to the new plaza there. By going there we want to connect to a bit of local history. In the 1970s Castro, they passed a similar law to target hippies that were laying around smoking pot or staring at the wall on acid or whatever, but what they really used it for was to target gay men who were flocking to the city to see this exciting new scene that was growing. There was this group called the Castro 14, guys who got put in jail for sitting on the streets. Harvey Milk was a huge opponent of this, and it eventually got repealed after he died because it was totally ridiculous and unfair and it was destroying part of the culture of the Castro.

It’s important that people contact us because we want to provide them with some basic infrastructure to make it a bit more focus and pointed. It’s unusual to do this kind of street activism when something is just being voted on at the Board of Supervisors. It’s going to go on the ballot this November regardless of how it’s voted on by the Board. We have this problem with Ross Mirikarimi and David Chiu who are basically bending to political pressure. They haven’t committed either way, but we’re going to send documents to everyone who contacts us with fact sheets and contact information to organize our opposition. Write us at info@standagainstsitlie.org and you’ll be getting good information, not spam, from us.

Another activity on the way to criminalization? (Photo: Kurt Bank)

Photo: markofphotography

"This was something that was an oversight from the initial enactment from 2006, which took effect in 2008," Simitian explained in an interview with Streetsblog. He said he waited a year after the law took effect to make changes, which include the increased fines, adding a point to a driver's record for the infraction, and using a portion of the fine to create an education fund for the dangers of distracted driving. Simitian also said the motivation for adding cyclists to the bill did not come from a dramatic incident nor a trend of increased cycling collisions due to cell phone use.

"Common sense tells us it’s not a safe habit, given all the risks that cyclists have to contend with," said Simitian.

The California Bicycle Coalition (CBC), which was an early supporter of the original distracted driving legislation, was not thrilled about the inclusion of cyclists in the bill. CBC Communications Director Jim Brown said that he was confused about the motivation for extending the same level of fines to cyclists, particularly absent data showing distracted cycling as a public safety hazard.

"The consequences of a distracted driver are considerably more serious than the consequences of distracted cycling," said Brown, adding that safe riding should be encouraged at all times and that talking on a cell phone or any other practice that distracted a cyclist from riding would not be advisable.

As for the actual danger to the public of distracted cycling, Brown said the data didn’t support the presumption of risk the law seeks to redress. "There are theoretical risks and there are actual risks," he said. "As far as I’m aware, there is no accident evidence that points to a problem. In the absence of any evidence against bicyclists, this law seems premature."

Tom Rice, Research Epidemiologist at UC Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, said the issue could be one of data and the definition of a collision. "Unless there is also a motorized vehicle involved, it won't make it into traffic collision reports," he said. The traditional databases, such as the CHP's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), don't capture bicycle-pedestrian injury collisions or fatalities. "The data are hard to come by. It's not a nice, easy reliable data set," said Rice.

Photo: Bryan Goebel

Simitian defended his record of support for cyclists, citing his work as mayor of Palo Alto to build that city's bicycle boulevard and numerous initiatives that improved cycling conditions. He also said he would be open to reviewing the fine structure in committee if that was a significant issue.

"I’ve been an advocate for cyclists for 25 years for full rights to the road, but with those rights come a certain degree of responsibility," he said.

UPDATE: The SFBC's Andy Thornley wanted to be sure readers know they don't oppose Senator Simitian's bill: "We're definitely in favor of cell phone and distracted driver/rider prohibitions that create safe streets for all users, no special forgiveness for folks on bikes. The concerns I expressed to Streetsblog about the proposal are not whether bicycle riders should follow the same rules as everyone else (they should), it's whether a distracted SUV driver and a distracted bike rider should be fined the same amount, given the enormous disparity in their destructive potential."

Bryan Goebel contributed reporting to this story.

July 2009, Critical Mass circles Union Square

In the following months, the ride grew steadily, hitting a couple of hundred by February 1993, and still there was no police presence. I think there may have been one motorcycle cop who came upon us during those months and just rode on. In April 1993 it changed though. The ride had grown to several hundred cyclists, and those of us who were publishing the monthly "Critical Mass Missives" and preparing proposed routes with maps, writing flyers, handing out stickers (all under the happy neologism of "Xerocracy") were already worried about the culture of the ride. Too many people were bleating that Orwellian chant "Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad!" and admonishing motorists in an entirely unpleasant self-righteous moralistic tone.

Behaviorally, we already had identified the "Testosterone Brigade" as a problem, young men who seemed to be looking for confrontation, perhaps exercising unresolved anger with their parents by taunting motorists or deliberately riding into oncoming traffic. Another group was dubbed the "snails" because no matter how often we stopped at the front to give everyone a chance to "mass up," a bunch of folks would just dawdle way at the back and never catch up. This led to long stretches of thinly-occupied streets, where just a few cyclists were noodling along. In April 1993 in just this kind of scenario, a motorist tried to cross Market to Guerrero and when cyclists surged in front to block him, he hit one girl. Her bike was totaled, ending up under his car, which careened into a hydrant on the corner while he was trying to escape. The girl was not physically harmed luckily, but her boyfriend, not knowing that she wasn't under the car, reached in and took the keys out of the ignition. The cops came up and arrested the girl and her boyfriend and let the motorist go, treating him as the victim, even though it was widely felt by all present, including bystanders on the street, that he had behaved with homicidal intent.

The 16th birthday ride in Sept. 2008, here on Polk Street.

In June 1997, rumor has it Mayor Willie Brown got stuck in his limo during Critical Mass. He was soon fulminating in the press about how something had to be done! He tried to bring Critical Mass representatives into a meeting (I was invited and refused to go) and managed to get some SF Bike Coalition board members to show up. His pet supervisor at the time was Michael Yaki, and it was Yaki who appeared on the steps of City Hall after the meeting impersonating Neville Chamberlain in 1938 ("peace in our time!"), waving a piece of paper which he claimed was an agreement with Critical Mass (impossible by definition) about how the ride would proceed on the following Friday.

What happened was beautifully documented in Ted White's documentary "We Are Traffic!" which you can see online. The police and Mayor Brown put up a sound system and stage and had the gall to welcome the riders to our own event. They were roundly booed. Brown, realizing that he had not managed to co-opt Critical Mass, decided to unleash the police. They were happy to oblige and a mini-riot took place in mid-Market where several cyclists were arbitrarily pushed to the ground, violently arrested, and their bikes impounded. Critical Mass had split into dozens of groups roaming the city's streets for hours, in what was probably one of the most chaotic evenings in Critical Mass history. The police could not get a handle on things, in spite of their license to repress, and it wasn't until very late that night that they corralled one of the mini-masses still riding, surrounding them in the financial district and arresting them all. The day after the Chronicle's false headline was "250 cyclists arrested!" The actual number was about 112, and most of them had been in the illegal roundup. Howard Besser, one of the arrestees, filed a suit against the police and won, and won a second time when the city appealed, and was awarded about $1,000 in damages. No one was ever convicted of any crimes that occured that night, because there had been no crimes!

The following month, August 1997, after a month of torrid bad press, online flame wars (much like you we still see on the SFGate) denouncing all bicyclists, and a remarkably one-sided representation of what had happened (no mention of Mayor Brown's land-swap shenanigans with the Transbay terminal property that was going on behind the scenes during the same summer), about 5,000 bicyclists showed up in defiant celebration at their own monthly gathering. This time, anticipating a very heavy-handed police presence, the plan was to follow the Good Soldier Schweik approach, that is, ride to rule. Each cyclist would ride as if it were a motor vehicle, obeying all laws, stopping at every light and sign, signaling every turn, etc. That held for the first hour or so, and the traffic downtown was MUCH WORSE than it had ever been before. Thousands of cyclists filling the streets, obeying the traffic laws, turned out to be much more disruptive than following the safe and predictable method of Critical Mass that had evolved over time. 

From that time forward, a kind of truce developed with the police. The ebb and flow of policing over the ensuing years has been unpredictable, going back and forth between angry belligerence and benign tolerance. Sometimes a bunch of bicycling cops joined us, sometimes there were hardly any police at all, and sometimes a whole bunch of motorcycle cops and paddy wagons would come. They've never made any mass arrests, but they do ticket riders on occasion, usually in a somewhat punitive fashion if they see someone they particularly want to inconvenience (it's generally for running red lights, or impeding traffic, or other normal Critical Mass behaviors). When they do, like a few months ago on Broadway coming east out of the tunnel, it led to a half hour traffic jam blocking the streets. Critical Mass riders don't always stop in solidarity with every rider who gets hassled by the cops, but when they do, it raises the costs to the city in terms of traffic blocked and the number of officers who gather to secure the area while a traffic infraction ticket is written.

It is a useful reminder to all that the best approach (usually the one taken by the cops when they're being reasonable) is to facilitate the ride moving continuously through the city until it's finished.

Police repression, when it comes, is part of a larger culture war between those who think the American Way of Life is fundamentally about cars, business, and private property (almost always a strong bias of individual police) and the growing movement to shift into a new way of organizing our lives, based on ecological principles, reduced resource use, and a more convivial, publicly-oriented cityscape. Most of us riding in Critical Mass are not out to break the law or antagonize anyone, but we do feel strongly that we have to demonstrate firmly and directly a different way of life. To those of us committed to a life with a greater sense of conviviality and a commitment to a public sphere, the childish and antagonistic behavior that a few cyclists bring to the ride has been dismaying.

Unfortunately, the old xerocracy mostly died out (with the notable exception of the 10th anniversary ride in 2002--four different beautiful posters were made and put all around town, dozens of stickers and flyers were distributed at the ride, a book was published). Once or twice a year someone shows up with a flyer addressing the culture of the ride, or prepares a suggested route, but in general, cultural production, once so essential to the experience, went into hibernation. After more than a decade the transmission of the culture from oldtimers to newbies has broken down. People riding in Critical Mass these days might have been infants when we started it 18 years ago!

Sadly, some people show up because they believe all the media lies about this big anarchistic confrontational experience, though they are tiny in number. Still, when they behave badly they get an inordinate amount of attention, not just in the media when it deigns to address this ongoing cultural phenomenon, but weirdly, from other cyclists. There's a mentality that has been shaped by our profit-driven media: when it bleeds, it leads. I'm afraid all too many people on all sides of Critical Mass tend to fall into this same mental trap, focusing their attention on the tiny few who behave like jerks, rather than the overwhelming thousands (and not just here, but across the planet in over 300 cities worldwide) who manage things well, extend courtesy and kindness to bystanders, have joyful interchanges with people briefly stuck in buses and cars, and are greeted exuberantly from neighbors in their windows as we roll through central city neighborhoods.

Now the police seem to be threatening Critical Mass again, but to what end?

It's a small thing, lasting 2-3 hours a month, inconveniencing lots of people for a short time, but keeping an important cultural space open. In that space, a different kind of life is in gestation, where new friends and networks continually discover one another, where we experience radical direct democracy, rolling through the streets. And it is available to all comers. Historically it's been self-managed, and recently a new website and discussion list have been started to remedy the fact that the culture hasn't been handed down well between generations of riders.

As for what could work, I'd suggest that Chief Gascon start by removing all motorized vehicles from accompanying the ride, send whatever police he deems necessary on bicycles, and reiterate that Critical Mass is a cultural fact of life in San Francisco. Anything else is likely to make things worse and cost the city a lot more money over the long haul.

Photo: Troy Holden

San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón vowed last week to implement significant crime reducing strategies through his Compstat system and restructured enforcement based on best practices from inside and outside of his department, including two measures that have pedestrian and bicycle advocates astir.

At a press conference with Mayor Gavin Newsom Friday, Gascón said he would reduce overall crime in San Francisco by 20 percent in one year, including a 10 percent reduction in Muni-related crime and a 10 percent reduction in collisions between cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.

When asked for more details about how the SFPD would reduce bicycle and pedestrian injury collisions, SFPD spokesperson Lt. Lynn Tomioka said Compstat would be a start, enabling the department to better analyze data collected about infractions so enforcement could be targeted to dangerous behavior. She also noted that Compstat alone would not be sufficient and that the department is in the process of restructuring its reporting and enforcement policies for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

"It's an area that’s evolving," she said. "The whole report-managing system is being very closely scrutinized, because we track everything by our reporting system. There are a lot of changes that [Chief Gascón] has implemented and a lot more systems that he will change."

Tomioka said the department will look to various station captains for best practices, such as the crosswalk stings conducted by Ingleside Station Captain David Lazar. "Chief Gascón wants to see more visibility for programs that Captain Lazar has found effective and worthwhile," she said, adding that crosswalk stings are good at educating drivers about danger to pedestrians. She said they wanted to see "all stations, not just the pilot station" being more active with innovative enforcement.

"I appreciate Chief Gascon's initiative to reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions," said Walk SF's Manish Champsee, noting that crosswalk stings were very effective. "By far and away the most common reason for a pedestrian-auto crash is when the driver does not yield the way to the pedestrian."

Tomioka also said they would meld enforcement with education campaigns. "We want to get across that people need to be safe and practice safety," she said, referring to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Among the dangerous behavior they would target, Tomioka cited drivers running red lights and turning on red without stopping for pedestrians, cyclists running lights and stop signs, and pedestrians crossing on red signals and jaywalking in general.

Champsee was concerned with over-emphasis on jaywalking, which he said, "isn't necessarily a large contributor to pedestrian/auto crashes."

He also noted that "The Netherlands legalized jaywalking several years ago and didn't find an increase in pedestrian injuries and fatalities." 

Bicycle advocates were slow to praise the department's moves, cautioning that enhanced enforcement without a reevaluation of stereotypes associated with cycling, driving, or pedestrian safety could prove ineffective at best.

"How will we bring a focus on the behavior that is most dangerous?" asked San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Program Director Andy Thornley. "It's not just focusing on ticketing people rolling through stop signs but on those behaviors that are truly injurious." When pressed for clarification if that was code for enforcing dangerous driving, Thornley said yes.

"If you walk or bike or take a bus in this city and you watch what happens, it seems pretty clear that most of the danger is coming from the operators of motor vehicles. We are keen to see that the efforts focus on the source of the menace."

Thornley also promoted the change in collision reporting and said that the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) often found cyclists equally at fault in collisions, despite recent studies from Toronto and London that found cyclists were at fault in the scantest of cases. Thornley also pointed to anecdotes of bias among officers against cyclists in reporting crashes, such as the incident Streetsblog reported last year with officer bias on clear display (Tomioka said there was fallout from that incident, but wouldn't elaborate).

"That’s not to say that cyclists shouldn’t be exempt from enforcement activity. I think we see, every day, cyclists behaving rudely and selfishly," said Thornley. "We want to emphasize before we go very far, it would be good for all parties to evaluate what really is happening on the streets. If we just go off of our prejudice, we may not get the effective, meaningful enforcement that we really need."

In addition to comments about general enforcement last week, Gascón said he would revisit his department's policy toward Critical Mass bicycle rides and suggested that if a measure banning Critical Mass were put on the ballot, it would pass easily.

Never mind the question of how arguably ineffectual it would be to put bicycle riding on a ballot measure, the threat of clamping down on Critical Mass had regular cyclists fulminating on listservs, and brought up memories of former Mayor Willie Brown's crackdown in 1997. With increased enforcement and hundreds of arrests, Brown only catalyzed cyclists around the resistance to heavy policing and made the rides much larger.

SFPD's Tomioka was cognizant of the ride's history and said her department didn't want to alienate the many people who support Critical Mass. "On the other hand there are those who hate it," she said.

Chief Gascón has tasked Assistant Chief Kevin Cashman to look at their current enforcement policies, particularly in light of budget constraints. She said one solution in addition to possible enforcement changes was the creation of community forums, which she painted as unofficial community advisory councils, where "any member of bicycle groups can inform the community relations unit and the Chief with ideas to make the city much more efficient and safe."

"We’re not naïve to think that everyone will be happy, but something needs to improve with Critical Mass," added Tomioka. "We want to allow people to ride on the streets but not have people stuck in their cars terrified by the riders or unable to get where they need to go."

An injured bicyclist is loaded onto a gurney by paramedics on 14th Street and Market Thursday evening after being hit by a driver. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

Thursday was a momentous day for the growing and diverse population of people who ride bicycles in San Francisco, though as I'm about to relate to you, the city still has a steep hill to climb, particularly in the San Francisco Police Department.

All day, my job took me to the sites of new bicycle improvements: California's first green bike box, the city's first physically separated bike lane and bike racks installed on sidewalks. Although these additions are baby steps toward making the city more bicycle friendly, they are important symbols, and they were roundly cheered by bicycle riders who have been starved for even minimal improvements.

As I coasted eastbound down Market nearing Church on my way home from the Lower Haight last night, I was confronted by a grim picture, the stark reality of life that daily bicycle commuters intimately imagine any time a door is opened into our path, or a vehicle makes an unsuspecting right or left turn without seeing, or caring, that we are riding there.

At the scene, to my left, a woman was lying in the crosswalk on 14th Street, surrounded by paramedics and SFPD officers. The intersection was illuminated by the flashing red and blue lights of emergency vehicles and patrol units. My first thought was, "another serious pedestrian injury or fatality in a crosswalk."

The injured woman, who appeared to be in her 20s, was in fact hit by a northbound driver in a gray Toyota Camry making an illegal left turn onto 14th Street from Church, according to a witness. She was on a bicycle and the wrecked light-blue 70s Gitane ten-speed, with its crank arms and wheels bent, was resting on a utility pole outside Trigger. It was hard to tell, but it appeared as though she had been seriously injured: her head was in a brace. The driver, an unidentified woman, remained behind the wheel, parked in the crosswalk, talking on a cell phone while paramedics tended to the victim and officers interviewed witnesses.

The injured woman was then loaded onto a gurney and into the ambulance, where she remained surrounded by paramedics, and was rushed to the hospital. The only witness I could find was Carlos Corujo, the owner of the Freewheel Bike Shop in the Mission, who saw the whole thing, with his 3-year-old niece in his arms.

"I was walking across the crosswalk and I saw a girl on a bike coming the other direction and she was hit while the driver was taking a left-hand turn," he said. "I looked at the light right after the accident just to see who had the right of way, for sure, and the bicyclist had the right of way." He pointed out that a sign nearby said it is illegal to make a left turn onto 14th Street. In fact, there are three signs around the intersection.

The driver remained in her vehicle talking on a cell phone during the investigation.

And now to the very disconcerting part about the police. As I tried to get information from three SFPD police officers on the scene of the crash, two of them showered me with unadulterated disdain for bicyclists and pedestrians. One officer said she thought bicyclists and pedestrians are always at fault in crashes and that they are stupid for not watching out for drivers. She was very upset with cyclists running red lights. She told me the bicyclist was at fault in this crash without any knowledge that a witness was saying the opposite.

Another officer complained that bicyclists should be ticketed a lot more, then he said that he thought San Francisco bicyclists should all be moved to Treasure Island, where presumably they wouldn't be in the way. Though I deplore the argument made by some that cyclists are second-class citizens or that they face bias and discrimination in a way that resembles African Americans or other people of color in the U.S., this perverse suggestion by a sworn officer of the law is despicable. When it dawned on him that his bigotry might make it into my story, given the bright pink SFPD press badge dangling around my neck, he made a slightly menacing reference to memorizing the information on my pass.

In a follow-up interview today, Corujo said that when he was being interviewed by the officers they seemed to have a preconceived idea of what happened, and were fixated on confirming whether the woman had lights on her bike.

"It seems like they were trying to bias the story to even out the score or something," said Corujo. "I don't know if they were even listening to the idea that [the driver] had made an illegal turn."

Bicycle riders routinely report this kind of hostile reaction from the people sworn to protect and serve, but when I interviewed San Francisco's new police chief, George Gascon, a few months ago, I was encouraged that he seemed to be more open to embracing bicyclists than his predecessor, Heather Fong. He even promised to go on a bike ride with Streetsblog, though we're still awaiting a firm date. 

Even if Chief Gascon's approach to enhancing the effectiveness of his police force through Compstat bodes well for the city in certain respects, no amount of data analysis will dispel preconceived notions and prejudice among his personnel. The bias against bicyclists by some SFPD officers is a deeply endemic problem on the force that needs to be addressed immediately, especially as the city is installing more bicycle improvements, and the number of bicyclists is expected to soar.

I can't help but wonder what the "accident" report from last night is going to say. I imagine it will fault the bicyclist, despite what Corujo said, and it's very likely the driver won't be cited. Clearly, in the minds of these officers, drivers hold an entitlement to the streets, and bicyclists and pedestrians be damned.

For the sake of the injured woman on 14th and Church and for any cyclist involved in a crash in San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department must not disregard the rights of anyone, particularly people who choose one form of mobility over another.

All of this was no surprise to Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

"It's not only deeply disturbing that this bias against bicyclists still exists within the SF Police Department, but I believe it is illegal, given the Department's responsibility to uphold the law fairly and without personal bias. Chief Gascon should make it a priority to educate his officers and hold them accountable. Without leadership from the new Chief, there is no doubt in my mind that bicyclists will continue to bear the brunt of a dangerously biased police force. In this day and age, San Francisco cannot turn a blind eye to this."

SFPD public affairs returned my phone calls late this afternoon, and was expected to get back to me with a response, and more details on the crash.

Mission Street from Cesar Chavez to Highland Avenue is a vibrant commercial and pedestrian strip, though it also suffers from a good deal of speeding traffic. The strip is also notorious for the noise from motorcycle owners gunning it up the hill and along the long blocks just south of Cesar Chavez.

Since the middle of May, however, Captain David Lazar of the Ingleside Station (the same captain who does regular stings on drivers who don't yield to pedestrians) has deployed a consistent tandem of bicycle officers that patrol the street and very often make stops of vehicles like this one above.

I have to admit there is something very satisfying about seeing a bicycle with flashing lights pulling over a multi-ton vehicle, especially when it has been speeding on the street.  According to Captain Lazar, I'm not the only one who feels that way about the beat.

"We get great feedback from the public; they love them," he said.

Yesterday, while working on our beloved blog, I happened to see a stop out of my window and snapped this photo.

The citing officer's partner spots a driver on his cell phone and crosses the street.

From my window I could hear the officer ask the driver, "Why are you talking on your cell phone and driving? Don't you know that's illegal?"

By the time I got downstairs, the officer was issuing the citation for driving and talking on a phone to a driver who gave me pretty evil stink eye for thanking the officer for their presence in the neighborhood.

Here's hoping other captains are paying attention to the good work of their peers in Compstat meetings and they try similar approaches to calming our neighborhood streets.

San Francisco Pedicab drivers waiting for fares near Fisherman's Wharf. Photo Lulu Vision.

San Francisco Pedicabs, the sole company operating pedal-powered liveries in the city since 1989, is about to be joined by Golden Gate Pedicabs, an offshoot of a company from Boston. Rather than resist the addition of a competitor, San Francisco Pedicabs owner Keith Saggers has been working with Golden Gate Pedicabs to negotiate the complicated permitting procedure with the SFPD, whose Chief Gascón has sole discretion over where the bicycle taxis may operate.

Saggers, whose company has a permit to do business exclusively along The Embarcadero between The Ferry Building and Fisherman's Wharf, hoped the addition of a new company and the growth of pedicabs in general would convince the city to revisit the pedicab rules, which were established in 1986 as Article 39 of the Police Code. He said the permitting procedure is a constant issue for him as his company has expanded to 15 cabs and as demand for greener transportation choices increases. His current permit limits his drivers to a route that doesn't connect to important downtown destinations like Union Square and the Moscone Convention Center. He also conceded that his drivers will occasionally take the risk of a ticket when customers request those destinations.

"Sometimes I think the routes are a stupid idea, sometimes I think they are good because they keep us off dangerous streets," said Saggers, who added that efforts to expand his permit to include a route to the Moscone Center had been met with resistance from the SFPD and the MTA at meetings of the Interdepartmental Staff Committee for Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT), an interagency body that traditionally determines street closures.

According to a policy document adopted by ISCOTT in 2000 [PDF], there are a litany of reasons why new routes should not be approved, particularly in the downtown core, the logical place for pedicab business.  Permits are discouraged in general for routes that include transit or heavy traffic, unless those routes have a bike lane wide enough to fit a pedicab or if the vehicle lane is wide enough to comfortably fit a vehicle and a pedicab side-by-side.

When asked whether its policy should do more to promote pedicabs in San Francisco, the SFPD Officer Samson Chan said that the issue for his agency was whether or not the proposed new route "will mess up the flow of traffic."

MTA spokesperson Kristen Holland echoed the SFPD, saying their "policy is to approach new pedicab permits cautiously.... Introduction of pedicab operations in the downtown area or on transit or arterial streets that don’t have bike lanes could impede the flow of transit and traffic."

Though the SFBC hasn't lobbied publicly for pedicabs in the recent past, the group did suggest they should be considered in the city's wider green transportation policy goals. "It seems like this is a no-brainer," said SFBC Program Director Andy Thornley. "There should be people-powered transit [in] San Francisco to serve the city's many policy goals for congestion relief, climate protection and better smelling streets."

Deputy City Attorney Tom Owen said the pedicab law on its face was similar to other permitting laws and implied that changes to it would have to come from the legislative branch of city government. "The Chief of Police has to exercise sound and reasonable discretion--he would have to assume that there is some reason to restrict the movement," said Owen about the SFPD's permitting procedure. He clarified that the moment a pedicab charges for a service, they are no longer simply bicycles with three wheels and that similar route restrictions apply to jitney service.

"There is no right to operate a business on a public street. It's a privilege."

For Saggers, the question of how much room the city will make for pedicabs was the central concern. In addition to new routes, he said the city will have to consider staging areas for the cabs, whether or not they can wait for fares on sidewalks as the do currently on Port of San Francisco property, or whether the city would eventually consider pedicab standing areas on-street, similar to those for taxis.

With the exception of Supervisor Chris Daly, said Saggers, the issue doesn't seem to be on the political radar, and until the city takes a more serious look at its policy toward pedicabs, his company and future competitors will continue to operate in a gray area.

"Officers have said they don't have the man-power to police pedicabs," said Saggers. Their advice to his drivers? "Just stay out of trouble."

Police enforcement on Muni is getting a major overhaul after years of inconsistent officer deployment. Under a revised Memorandum of Understanding between the Police Department and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, officers will be required to ride lines that most frequently have problems with crime. Station captains will now regularly present Muni crime statistics for their districts at Comstat meetings, where they will be grilled on why crime has increased or decreased.

In his sixth day on the job, SFPD deputy chief in charge of safety operations on Muni John Murphy presented the plan at a two-hour hearing on Muni safety at a Board of Supervisors committee meeting today. Murphy said that district captains are now required to develop statistic-driven monthly plans for targeting crime on Muni. "Starting from today forward, crime is going to be addressed in a different way," said Murphy. "As opposed to having officers randomly get on buses of their own choice, the onus is going to be on the district station captains."

"We're going to mirror the zone enforcement that we've used over the last 20 months in San Francisco. We're going to use crime statistics, community input, and drivers' complaints and concerns."

In the past, many officers skipped out on their requirement to ride Muni during each shift, as stipulated by the Bus Inspection Program. By some accounts, that issue persists now, even among officers who are required to tag on and off with TransLink cards that track their ridership: Muni customers have reported seeing officers tag multiple cards. Murphy said a major part of his job will be making sure officers are actually riding when they're supposed to.

While the hearing was billed partially as an update on the SFPD TransLink pilot, little information was provided on officer compliance with the program. On Friday, Sgt. Wilfred Williams, an SFPD spokesperson, said that issues with the software were still being resolved, since TransLink readers were designed to deduct fares, not track officers.

Preliminary SFPD TransLink data shows that officers are not riding where they're needed the most. Muni incidents, January-August 2009. Time spent on Muni by officers tracked by TransLink cards, September-October 2009. Source: SFPD

Captain David Lazar, head of Ingleside Station, said new route by route statistics for Muni crime will make it much easier to effectively deploy his officers. "This is great data," said Lazar. "In the years I've been in the police department, we've never had a document like this," referring to a set of charts that outlined crime statistics by type, location, bus line, and hour in the Ingleside District.

"No longer is it acceptable for me as a captain to tell police officers to just ride when they want to ride. It's important for me to give them data," said Lazar, who implemented SFPD's first "Operation Safe Muni" sting in his district.

Murphy described the first citywide "Operation Safe Muni" sting on November 4th as "pretty successful," and called for further targeted enforcement operations. "What this pilot program shows is that there is a need for enforcement," said Murphy. "This needs to be continually and covertly."

At the beginning of the hearing, which was called by Supervisor Bevan Dufty, several Muni riders told stories of experiencing and witnessing violent attacks and robberies on the city's transit system. One rider, Tim Bishop, said he was attacked in January on a T-Third line vehicle by youths who were shouting anti-gay epithets. When he confronted them, he was beaten unconscious and repeatedly kicked in the head.

Several people expressed frustration that Muni operators didn't intervene or respond to attacks and robberies. Union president Irwin Lum said drivers are overtaxed and have little recourse. "Often times, our operators are under tremendous pressure not just to operate the vehicles but to manage what goes on in the vehicles," said Lum. "The most we are expected to do is call Central Control when there's an incident on our vehicles."

Dufty appeared mostly satisfied with SFPD's plan. "I appreciate that this is a new responsibility for you and that ... you've got a commitment to making this a more directed program, and making it more successful," Dufty told Murphy. "I'm going to ask you to continue this and come back and hear some progress in the next few months."

Flickr photo: Jeremy Brooks

Safety on Muni has become a hot issue in the mainstream press after several horrific and widely publicized attacks, as well as a fight that was videotaped and posted on YouTube. That's brought extra attention to an issue that surfaced during the MTA's budget crisis this spring: the agency is paying the police department for officers to ride Muni, but riders rarely see police onboard.

The SFPD's Bus Inspection Program requires each sergeant in a patrol division and each officer "assigned to a radio car" to make two transit inspections per shift. Officers on foot patrol are required to make at least four inspections per shift. Even though the MTA was paying for the service, officers have been a rare sight on Muni.

In June, the SFPD and the MTA announced a trial program to record and track officers on the city's buses and trains by requiring them to tag TransLink cards when they enter and exit, and 1,300 cards were issued to officers in September as part of the pilot. SFPD has also conducted several high-profile "Operation Safe Muni" stings, first out of its Ingleside Station and then, recently, citywide. Each District Station has also developed and submitted its own transit security plan.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty called the hearing to determine if officers are regularly riding Muni now and to get a full update on SFPD's Muni safety plans. "While we're happy, certainly, that mainstream media have taken the gauntlet up of Muni crime, it's been recent, but Muni crime has been a reality for folks who ride the system for years," said Boe Hayward, Dufty's legislative aide. "Muni is a major lifeblood of this city, and our citizens should be protected on Muni just like they should be at their homes or walking the street."

Hayward said he's looking forward to the update, but he's equally interested in what Muni riders are seeing on the system. He said Dufty would like to hear from anyone "who would like to come and testify to their experience, whether they be a victim, whether they have witnessed it on a regular basis, or on a sporadic basis, for that matter, or, if people are like, 'I've been happy with the supposed recent influx of police on buses,' we'd like to hear that, too."

"This hearing is going to be far more powerful if we're able to reach out to folks who are riders, rather than just have Muni and cops provide a PowerPoint," added Hayward.

Rumors have circulated of individual officers tagging multiple TransLink cards, earning credit for colleagues who aren't actually riding Muni. Members of the public may have insight into whether this is really happening as well.

The hearing will be the first item the Supes committee addresses Monday, and public comment will come before presentations by the SFPD and MTA, so Muni riders can show up by 11 a.m. and leave as soon as they're done speaking. Hayward encouraged anyone who can't make it to email him with any stories.

Monday will also mark the public debut of the new SFPD deputy chief in charge of safety operations on Muni, John Murphy, who is taking over for Tony Parra. "Murphy now to some extent has a clean slate, and can really let us know what his strategy and plans are," said Hayward. "Monday will be sort of his coming out party, if you will."

Hearing on Muni safety at the Board of Supervisors City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee: Monday, November 23, San Francisco City Hall, Room 250. The public comment period will begin shortly after 11 a.m., followed by presentations by the MTA and SFPD. Muni riders with tales to tell, positive or negative, about safety on Muni, should email Boe Hayward, legislative aide to Supervisor Bevan Dufty.

Ingleside Captain David Lazar briefs officers and the media on Operation Safe Muni today. Photo: Michael Rhodes

"I think it's going to come as a very big surprise to people who get away with eating or fare evasion on a daily basis," Lazar said during a lunchtime briefing at Tenderloin Station. Immediately after the briefing, officers set out on a citywide sting to find violators of all types. It's all part of Operation Safe Muni, a program Lazar started in the Ingleside District in September after several high-profile attacks on Muni, and reports of widespread fare evasion and theft.

After two Operation Safe Muni stings in Ingleside were deemed successful, SFPD decided to launch today's citywide sting and evaluate the results. "It's a zero tolerance approach to crime on Muni," said Lazar, who recently became captain of Ingleside Station and made news earlier this year when he ordered stings on drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty speaks outside Tenderloin Station after the briefing today. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Kristen Holland, a spokesperson for the MTA, said the agency welcomes the SFPD's efforts. "We're certainly very pleased to be working with them and seeing this cooperative, collaborative effort put in place. Hopefully it will be successful."

The question, of course, is whether one day of high-profile stings will make a difference. Supervisor Bevan Dufty said he'll be watching closely to see if SFPD follows up. "I think I can speak for Muni riders who are happy to hear today that police officers are in fact going to be riding the lines that are having the most problems. I think that's a smart way to focus resources," said Dufty. "But I'm going to continue to ask the public to let me know that they see these officers riding."

Dufty added, "My message to the new police chief is, the best thing you can do is have officers visibly riding the system. It helps prevent crime, it helps make it a more pleasant experience, and it's going to avoid fare evasions."

The MTA pays the SFPD for its officers to ride Muni regularly, but, at least until recently, the agency hasn't been getting its money worth. The SFPD's Bus Inspection Program requires each sergeant in a patrol division and each officer "assigned to a radio car" to make two transit inspections per shift, and officers on foot patrol are required to make at least four inspections per shift. In spite of that rule, Muni riders have reported rarely seeing officers on Muni vehicles. SFPD is now testing a program to track officers' Muni rides by requiring them to tag TransLink cards as they board and exit vehicles.

Dufty is holding a hearing on November 23 with the new SFPD deputy chief in charge of safety operations on Muni, John Murphy, which he hopes will provide insight into how that program is going. "We've had commitments made before and I have not seen officers visible on Muni," Dufty noted.

After a day of riding buses and writing citations, officers involved in Operation Safe Muni will meet later in the evening to debrief, according to Sgt. Wilfred Williams, an SFPD spokesperson. By tomorrow morning, said Williams, SFPD will provide an update on how the operation went, and then determine whether more stings will be carried out.

SFPD plans to announce each operation, but will broadcasting it in advance undermine the department's efforts?

As Lazar told Streetsblog about his station's pedestrian sting this summer, probably not. "You could do a big announcement right now and we're still going to write a hundred citations," Lazar said at the time. He was referring to drivers not stopping for pedestrians, but the same may prove equally true for bad behavior on Muni, where a police officer is still the last thing most riders expect to see.

Photo: Thomas Hawk

The SFPD and DPH will share the grant worth $302,189. SFPD will focus its enforcement on the following citations at or near intersections with disproportionate collisions involving pedestrians:

• Motorists violating pedestrian right-of-way
• Violations by pedestrians
• Vehicles violating the posted speed limits
• Right turn violations at intersections
• Red light violations

Ana Validzic of the DPH said the grant will be used to improve their comprehensive pedestrian injury maps [PDF], to update their pedestrian safety material, and to provide four mini-grants to advocacy groups that have been involved in pedestrian safety campaigns. She said previous recipients of DPH grants were Walk SF, Senior Action Network, and Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Validzic was upbeat about sharing the grant with SFPD and said it was an encouraging sign that OTS would give the money this way. "This funding from OTS represents a dramatic shift for them. In the past 8 years, they have been interested in other traffic safety initiatives and now they are really focused on pedestrian safety initiatives like Safe Routes to School."

OTS grants would typically be for two years, according to Validzic, but because of the uncertainty around re-authorization of the federal Transportation Equity Act (TEA), this year's grant is only for one year. Waiting on the federal scramble around TEA's re-authorization or further extension means DPH and SFPD won't know how consistently they can rely on OTS funding for pedestrian programs like this one.

At least it's something, noted Walk SF Executive Director Manish Champsee, who was also excited by the joint grant.

"At one time pedestrian education was educating pedestrians to get the hell out of the way," offered Champsee, who pointed to the data showing two-thirds of injury collisions involving pedestrians in San Francisco are due to driver fault. He conceded, however, that money spent on eduction is not wasted, assuming it goes hand in hand with increased enforcement. "Maybe the ideal thing is that people shouldn't behave like maniacs. But there is probably something to say for educating the most vulnerable populations, say, 'you need to pay attention to the fact that a lot of drivers don't follow the rules.'"

According to police statistics, pedestrian fatalities over the past five years have been the fault of pedestrians and the fault of motorists violating pedestrian right-of-way at roughly the equivalent proportion, although Champsee noted that those two violations don't add up to the total. Given the ratio of fault in injury collisions generally, he assumed the other fatalities were due to other driver behavior, such as speeding or running red lights.

• 2009    13 pedestrian fatalities.  Out of the 13 fatalities, primary collision factors were violations of pedestrian right-of-way (4) and violations on the part of the pedestrian (4)
• 2008    13 pedestrian fatalities.  Out of the 13 fatalities, primary collision factors were violations of pedestrian right-of-way (5) and violations on the part of the pedestrian (5)
• 2007    24 pedestrian fatalities.  Out of the 24 fatalities, primary collision factors were violations of pedestrian right-of-way (7) and violations on the part of the pedestrian (7)
• 2006    16 pedestrian fatalities.  Out of the 16 fatalities, primary collision factors were violations of pedestrian right of way (5) and violations on the part of the pedestrian (6)
• 2005    14 pedestrian fatalities.  Out of the 14 fatalities, primary collision factors were violations of pedestrian right-of- way (5) and violations on the part of the pedestrian (6)
  

Flickr photo: AgentAkit

Supervisor Bevan Dufty has called for the MTA and the SFPD to provide an update to the public on SFPD's Bus Inspection Program, and the agencies have agreed to do so at a November 9 Board of Supervisors committee meeting. The presentation will include an update on the trial program to track officers' Muni ridership by requiring them to tag their TransLink cards as they enter and exit transit vehicles.

The SFPD's Bus Inspection Program requires each sergeant in a patrol division and each officer "assigned to a radio car" to make two transit inspections per shift, and officers on foot patrol are required to make at least four inspections per shift, but Muni riders have reported rarely seeing officers on Muni vehicles. Back in June, Tony Parra, the SFPD Deputy Chief and director of Security Enforcement for the MTA, announced a trial program requiring officers from some stations to tag their TransLink cards when they made transit inspections, giving the MTA and SFPD a way to confirm they're doing their duty.

Supervisor Dufty said he called for the update in light of recent violent incidents on Muni, and an MTA study showing high levels of fare evasion, though transit advocates have been waiting for an update since the program was announced in June.

"News reports about continued violence on Muni and estimates that up to $19 million is lost every year due to fare evasion, I look forward to hearing from the Police Department and Muni about the Bus Inspection Program," said Dufty in a press release. "Providing basic safety on our buses is critical to the success of our public transit system."

Have you seen more police officers on Muni lately, or tagging a TransLink reader? Let us know in the comments below.

Supervisor Carmen Chu, with a demonstration of the new safety sign in the background. Photo: Michael Rhodes

At a press event announcing the initiative, Chu said she's been working with the MTA to address the issue. The problem is especially prevalent in her district, where the N-Judah and L-Taraval lines stop exclusively in the center of the street. "We see, a lot of times in our district, near misses, where individuals are coming off of the train and vehicles are not stopping because either they are unaware and they can't stop in time, or are going too fast, or maybe just simply don't know that it is a rule."

The new bright yellow signs on LRVs were added last week and read: "Motorists must stop for pedestrians." While many train stops already have signs mounted high up on utility poles, MTA Deputy Chief Operating Officer Samuel Lau said the new signs are far more visible to motorists. "Motorists don't really have their eyes trained on what's 20 feet on the right hand side," said Lau.

"They're looking at the LRVs, they're looking at the lights. So, we've designed these stickers as bright yellow as they are to communicate to customers and motorists, mainly, that you need to stop whenever a train is stopped and the doors are opening."

Supervisor Chu demonstrates the new sign. One of the old signs, which the MTA believes are not visible enough, is visible in the background. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Just in the past five years, Chu said, there have been two dozen incidents where people have been hit by cars that fail to yield and pass stopped LRVs. "This is a big district issue for Sunset. It's also a big issue in all parts of the city where you do see passengers disembarking from the trains."

"I really hope that we get the message out, number one, to the drivers, please do yield, just wait a little bit longer so that the people can safely get off of the trains. And then of course, for all passengers of Muni, just make sure you look outside before you step off the light rail vehicle."

The signs are the education component of the safety initiative; Taraval district station captain Paul Chignell said he was instructing officers to step up the enforcement component. "We found that there are many, many instances of people being unaware of the law," said Chignell. "We are letting people know now that my officers here out in the Taraval district will be citing drivers who violate that statute."

SFPD Deputy Chief and director of Security Enforcement for the MTA Tony Parra said that SFPD would start with education, warning drivers that they must obey the law, then move to full enforcement with $146 fines, and targeted stings to make sure the point gets across.

The N-Judah "station" at 7th and Irving Streets. Pedestrians must enter into the middle of the street to board. Flickr photo: chronos tachyon

While education and enforcement are both part of the initiative, costlier and perhaps more effective engineering improvements to the streetcar stops are not on the immediate horizon. Chu said she believes awareness is paramount, in the absence of design upgrades. Though she currently drives for most trips, before she was a supervisor, Chu rode the L-Taraval regularly and found that drivers and passengers were often not conscious of each other.

"I've actually myself witnessed coming off the light rail vehicles and seeing cars that just don't stop for you," said Chu. "So, I was always very conscientious and would just look outside before I would step off. But there are many people who are passengers who would be on their cell phones, who would just walk out without really taking a look."

In addition to this initiative, Chu has shown other signs of a nascent interest in pedestrian issues, including participating in an awareness campaign about the impact of illegal sidewalk parking on people with disabilities, and strong support for Sunday Streets along the Great Highway. A much more significant measure, of course, will be the outcome of this safety initiative, and whether Chu continues to pressure the Taraval police station to consistently enforce the law.

Photo: Michael Kohn

The eyewitness, Jose Luis, said the woman appeared to dodge out of the way when a delivery truck abruptly opened its door, causing her to ultimately collide with another truck, the Pepsi truck shown in the pictures here. The Pepsi truck was either parked or moving slowly when the bicyclist collided with it.

"There was a loud noise when she was hit," said Jose Luis. "I thought for sure she had been killed."  He explained that the driver of the Pepsi truck called for an ambulance and stayed on the scene.

Two other bystanders immediately pulled the victim out from under the truck. She was screaming, said Jose Luis, but alive. By the time an ambulance arrived and took her away, she was alert and talking on a cell phone someone had lent her, but her legs had been covered up by the medics.

The SFPD Public Affairs office had no knowledge of the crash when Streetsblog called. The SFPD and Fire Department were looking into it, but could not provide details at 12:30 p.m. Stay tuned for more information as we receive it.

Thanks to reader Michael Kohn for the tip. He sent Streetsblog these photos of the aftermath.

SFPD officer directing personal vehicles to turn right off of Market Street at 8th Street. Photos: Matthew Roth

Some drivers who approached the mandatory right turns at 8th Street, where the largest volume of personal vehicles were turning off of Market, were visibly flabbergasted. One woman at 8th and Market whipped around cars queued up while waiting for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk, only to find an SFPD traffic division motorcycle cop standing firmly in her way. She reversed, trying to get back in line, but found the way behind her crammed with pedestrians as the light had already changed. In the end, she idled nervously, half in the crosswalk, half in the intersection. The driver said she had no idea the restrictions were in place, that she just wanted to get off the street without any more hassles.

A driver from Walnut Creek said he had read about the changes in the papers but still thought it was confusing. When asked if he thought it should be returned to normal traffic flow, he was surprisingly supportive, saying, "Y'all gotta do what y'all gotta do."

A driver from San Francisco who knew of the trial from television news reports was also unfazed. "I'm pretty sure it's for the better, for the people."

Commercial delivery drivers seemed to all know about the changes and most praised them. Walter, a UPS driver parked in a commercial loading zone on Market between 6th and 7th Streets, said he was expecting the trial for several days because of the new fixed-message signs he had seen installed on his daily route. "I like it. There are less cars," he said adding that the real test will be later in the afternoon when he has a round of deliveries on Market between 4th and 5th.  "When it gets backed up there, it affects everything."

Other commercial delivery drivers like James Icard of Ecolab, who was parked at the commercial zone immediately in front of the Westfield Mall, said he hoped the reduction of personal vehicles would result in easier access to the loading zone, where he said people consistently idle illegally to pick up or drop off passengers. "People who shouldn't park here do." Icard also hoped the restrictions would cut down on tourists who inadvertently ended up on Market, where "they pull left hand turns the wrong way, u-turns" and other dangerous maneuvers.

A fairly common occurrence today: no cars anywhere in sight near U.N. Plaza

The SFBC's Marc Caswell, who stopped riding his bike on the street for an interview, said he was concerned about the possibility that low vehicular volumes could give drivers the feeling that they could drive at higher speeds, while pedestrians might jaywalk more frequently. He hoped there wouldn't be a spike in collisions.

Taxi drivers were overwhelmingly supportive, given the extra space and the relative ease of picking up and dropping off their fares. "It's wonderful for us," said Saleh Ali of Metro Cab. "We'll be moving faster."

Mario, a bicycle messenger with 17 years experience on the street, said that there were definitely fewer cars on Market, though he had heard from other messengers that drivers on adjacent streets seemed to be angrier. Mario also said the changes weren't relevant to him, that he would be riding with or without personal vehicles, and he suggested traffic diversions were not going to achieve the result the city wanted. "You want to clean up Market from 4th Street to 8th Street? Take a flamethrower."

Another cyclist who rides Market daily, David Melamed, was more upbeat and alluded to a challenge the Better Market Street Project organizers hope to address with a slate of future greening and programming objectives. "Yesterday I rode by at 11:45 and there was a sense of cars gridlocked everywhere. Today, it's like there is almost too much space. There needs to be some festive use of the space. It's important to do it fast, otherwise people will complain."

Reny Marquez of Pacific Heights approached me on foot as I interviewed a commercial driver and volunteered, "I think it's cool. They've got some crazy car drivers out here." He talked about several instances of "driver rage" and thought the preliminary trial should be broader. "I think they should close down the whole Market Street, from Van Ness to Embarcadero."

One of several large-format signs on Market warning personal vehicles to turn right.

Flickr photo: Richard Masoner

The woman is a local social worker who was commuting home on her bike. She wrote that the two unidentified men, who were in a silver BMW, shouted death threats and racial epithets, and tried to frighten her by swerving in and out of the bike lane. The car's license plate, and this no joke, read "BYE GIRL."

"I've been harassed many times as a bicyclist in San Francisco. Most of the times for no reason at all. However, this time they went way too far. Yelling at me once is fine. Following me in their car, driving into the bike lane, yelling racial epithets, and wishing death upon me is not fine," she wrote.

Sgt. Lyn Tomioka, an SFPD spokesperson, said the bicyclist chose not to pursue charges but that an inspector "did call both men, and they were severely warned, which is what the victim wanted." The allegations could have potentially warranted hate crime and vehicular assault charges. Tomioka said an assistant district attorney did review the case and decided against a filing.

She added: "If you could put out how important getting the license plate number is in any incident, I would appreciate it."

In a follow-up email to Streetsblog, the bicyclist, who we've chosen not to identify, explained her decision not to pursue charges:

I'm trying to be a better person in this case and hope that these two men learn from this experience. Also I date a criminal defense attorney who walked me through all the possible outcomes if I did pursue criminal charges. And personally (and as a social worker) I really believe in preventive measures and educating people rather then the "putting people in jail" approach. I guess after thinking it all through, I am satisfied with my decision and the outcome. I hope that people can learn to respect all people on the roads/streets.

I wanted to write you in hopes that you can help spread the word and warn bicyclists and decent people alike. I ask you to read what happened to me on Monday, September 14, 2009 and share this story and information as you and Streetsblog see fit.

On Monday, September 14, 2009 around 6pm I was on my way home from work on my bike as I am every work day. Except on this day, I not only got verbally harassed, but racially harassed by two men in a BMW. Seriously! As I was riding down Embarcadero, I heard a car honking and some guys yelling. I ignored it, not giving it much thought. A few seconds later the car pulled up next to me and the men in it started yelling at me (every other word was fucking or bitch or both) and telling me to stop at red lights. I crossed an intersection (Embarcadero and Battery) on a red light seconds before it turned green (I know but I made sure no cars and pedestrians were inconvenienced in any way and as soon as I started peddling the light turned green). The verbal assaults didn't stop there. They continued to follow me down Embarcadero driving erratically and yelling at me calling me a "fucking Asian bitch" and that "behind a bad driver is an Asian driver" and that they "wished that I died" over and over again. They swerved into the bike lane from time to time trying to scare me or cause me to fall off my bike. I yelled back but at this point I was really upset and frightened. Eventually, fearing for my safety, I got off my bike and walked up to them in the middle of the street. I was very close to punching them but realized that if I did, nothing would happen to them and I would end up in court. At one point the car passed by me so I got the car's license plate in case the car did hit me. Here's what I'm asking of you, please note this car and warn as many bicyclists as possible. The car is a dark silver BMW m3, two doors, and looked very new. The CA license plate is: BYE GIRL (I'm serious that was their license plate).

I've been harassed many times as a bicyclist in San Francisco. Most of the times for no reason at all. However, this time they went way too far. Yelling at me once is fine. Following me in their car, driving into the bike lane, yelling racial epithets, and wishing death upon me is not fine.

A spokesperson for the San Francisco Police Department, Sgt. Lyn Tomioka, encouraged the victim to file a police report so investigators can follow-up.

"That was a direct threat. She felt that they swerved to hit her in the bike lane. The term used was in direct comparison to her gender and her race and could easily be considered a hate crime, coupled with that threat from the vehicle," she said. "That's a situation where anyone should call for the police."

The woman told Streetsblog she was planning to meet with police today. Tomioka said it was also important she report the incident because it probably won't be the last time it happens.

"They were comfortable yelling the things they yelled. If they get away with it once, they're going to continue to do that. She had the sense, at some point, to stop and get the license plate, but there's people out there that don't think that quickly, that are intimidated by two people. My other advice would certainly be not to confront two men in a car.  I mean, she appeared to be a lone woman on a bicycle and she went to confront the two men. I think that's very dangerous."

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition also encourages bicyclists to report motorist harassment to SFPD, in some cases as vehicular assaults. Andy Thornley, the SFBC's program director, said police often discourage bicyclists from filing reports but they have every right to do it.

"By itself a report of vehicular assault isn't likely to launch a criminal investigation, you'll probably have to press charges, which means getting involved in a pretty serious way, actually confronting the person and seeing through a prosecution. I've never heard of anyone going through with it here in San Francisco," he said.

The SFBC's Marc Caswell said bicyclists could also attempt to get a license stripped by filing a complaint with the Department of Motor Vehicles, requesting the agency review the motorist's driving qualifications. He said he hasn't heard of anyone actually pursuing that route but that it would be worth experimenting with.

Police Chief George Gascón. Photo: Michael Rhodes

San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón is considering forming a task force to deal with bicycle and pedestrian issues, and "is very much in favor" of appointing a liaison to the bicycling community, as he begins to weigh a pressing number of livable streets concerns in the city.

"I think that some of the things that I would like to see here is perhaps the development of a task force or a group of people that are bicyclists as well as people that are not, and police, and try to start looking at some of these issues and trying to come up with a balanced approach that works for San Francisco dealing with traffic concerns, dealing with pedestrian concerns, dealing with bicycles."

In a short interview with Streetsblog San Francisco last Friday, Gascón, who was recently sworn in as police chief after serving as the top cop in Mesa, Arizona, said he is committed to making sure Muni is safe for all riders (our interview was conducted shortly before word got out about the vicious stabbing of an 11-year-old rider), and is still studying a memorandum of understanding that gave the MTA a greater role in managing the traffic division.

"I think that we definitely have an obligation and are certainly committed to ensuring that our public transportation is safe. And that requires presence and that requires attention. The other part is that we have to be smart," said Gascón. "Not every line and not every time of the day is going to require the same level of public safety concerns. So we have to be intelligent enough to be able to put our resources in the right places at the right time. And yet we have to continuously send the message that we could be anywhere anytime, so it's a balancing act."

Gascón committed to going on a bike ride with Streetsblog and bicycle activists to get a first-hand look at the conditions cyclists face on a daily basis, but balked at the idea of requiring all officers to occasionally ride a bicycle so they can understand the issues more thoroughly.

Gascón's willingness to meet with us, and discuss livable streets issues, is a sharp turnaround from the policies of his predecessor, Heather Fong, who often steered clear of reporters, and ignored efforts to establish closer working relationships with transit advocates. An SFPD public affairs spokesperson, Sgt. Lyn Tomioka, promised more time with the chief in the future. We tried to cram in as many questions as we could in our allotted fifteen minutes, and consulted with a number of transit advocates beforehand.

You can hear the entire interview below, and read highlights below the break:

With Chief Gascón and Public Affairs Sgt. Lyn Tomioka. Photo: Michael Rhodes.

• On bicycling and making the city safer for bicyclists: "There is no question that it's more environmentally sound, it's actually healthier for the individuals, so there are a lot of pluses about people riding bikes. Again, I think as it is the case with pedestrians, we have to ensure that bicyclist behavior is also appropriate. I see it all the time, a bicyclist comes to a red light and then they look both ways and they basically go right through it. On the other hand, I understand the people driving cars, sometimes they have very little regard for people on bikes. Number one, because sometimes they don't see the bike, and other times because they don't care. I think we have to make sure that we do what we can through education and enforcement in order to make sure that people who are in motorized vehicles are respectful of bicyclists."
• On the SFPD's bicycle fleet: "I have looked at some of our bikes, some of them quite frankly are in dire need of replacement and we are talking about the possibility of some areas, in fact, where people are asking for foot beats, to say that maybe a bike patrol may be more effective than a foot beat, because we have a hybrid. You have more of a one to one contact, but on the other hand, you can cover a larger piece of territory."
• On cars blocking bike lanes: "There's no question that blocking a bike lane makes for a very dangerous situation, so if that is a problem that we have, those are some of the areas that we're going to have to address. It could be a combination of education internally and externally. It could be also again looking at the total environmental structure in different parts of the city. I have seen some streets where the bike lane and everything is so tightly packed that it almost forces people sometimes to move around the bike lanes and move in other areas. So I think we have to come together and try to strike reasonable approaches to all of this, but the key to a lot of this is also communication and that's why I'm very much in favor of having a liaison within the police department and the bicyclist community. And I think it's also important to start bringing some people not only from the bicyclist community, but other communities to start discussing what are the solutions that will work well for us."
• Would you support lowering speed limits to make the streets safer for pedestrians? "The problem sometimes with lowering speed limits is sometimes it has the opposite impact of what you're looking for. In my experience many times it's a combination of street engineering; certainly there are places where you have to lower speed limits. Many times pedestrian death or pedestrian injuries are also caused by poor behavior on the part of the pedestrians. Often pedestrians are jay walking, they're not observing the traffic rules, so we have to be very careful, because it's a balancing act, you need traffic to move. If you are to officially to start lowering the speed limit too much, not only do you start impacting negatively the vehicular traffic, but then basically what you do is you create a situation where people start having less regard for the law, because they know that they're going to be exceeding it. So it's a balancing act. We have to make sure that we look at pedestrian behavior and we need to look at driver behavior and then determine what are the best things we can do. Is it an engineering problem, is it a speed limit problem or a combination of all."
• Do you think our problems with traffic here have more to do with a lack of enforcement or the design of the streets? "I think this is an old city and with old cities, and it's not only in San Francisco, it occurs in other parts of the country, as well as in Europe, sometimes it's more difficult to design state of the art traffic flow patterns because of the structure of the city, but that's what makes this city also incredibly beautiful and adds so much character. So what we have to do is we have to kind of work with that. I think also sometimes it's driver behavior, and again, because we are a high density city and there's so many people that drive or come into the city during the week day, tourists, people that work here, some people drive, other people take public transportation. So you have a lot of people in very close confines and all of that I think creates opportunities for us to try to be more creative and looking for different solutions. But I think it's a combination, I think it's street design, I think it's just the way the city is and I think that many of our streets were not designed for the level of traffic that they get today."
• Do you hope to weigh the priority of traffic enforcement based on danger to communities and hazards to others over blanket enforcement? "Absolutely, I think that traffic enforcement as well as enforcement against gangs or drugs or any other issue has to be put in the context of where are the areas that create the greatest hazards to our community. And I think that traffic is a very important area and quite frankly its an area where we lose many more people than we do to other concerns. Unfortunately sometimes it doesn't generate the same level of attention as a shooting and probably for a lot of good reasons. A shooting is an intentional act that is an assault on the entire community. Arguably somebody driving ten, 15 miles over the speed limit that is on the cell phone doesn't carry the same context, even though the result at the end could be the same, somebody gets seriously injured or dead."
• On high-speed chases: "I believe that our policies are adequate; I'm not so sure that all of our training is as much as we need to have, but this is an area that we are going to evaluate as we move on. Suffice it to say that I am a strong believer that in a police pursuit the end never justifies the means, meaning catching the bad guy doesn't justify just going any other way, any way that you can in order to get it there. I think that we have to evaluate and it's really a team effort. Many times the officer driving the car develops a certain level of tunnel vision and this is where the partner officer and the supervisors need to be able to assertively say hey you know what let's back off or let's not continue this pursuit. But that's training and clear policies are very important in this area and something that we're going to be looking at."

The lights on Market are timed so that Muni's buses and streetcars stop at red lights, load and unload passengers, and move on when the light turns green. But when cars stop in front of them on a red light, buses can't pull up to the island, and must wait until the light turns green to pull into the transit island. By the time they've finished loading and unloading passengers, the light is red again.

Such violations are rampant in San Francisco, based on interviews with Muni bus and streetcar operators, who insisted on anonymity, and observations by Streetsblog San Francisco.

Driving in a transit-only lane is an offense subject to a $60 fine, according to the city's traffic code. But ask a Muni driver whether they ever see cars in the city's 17 miles of transit-only lanes, and you'll likely hear an unequivocal response: "Oh yeah, all the time." That, more or less, is what nearly every Muni driver surveyed for this story said when asked whether private automobiles get in their way on stretches of streets like Market and Mission that have transit-only lanes. "That's the norm," said one operator.

Cars are in the transit-only lanes on "every run," said another Muni operator, who drives the 71-Haight and uses the transit-only lanes on Market Street. "People want to go on time. How we going to be on time? How can you be on time when all these people are in the bus lane?"

Many of the drivers attributed the rampant violations to a lack of enforcement. "There's no police around. They're supposed to be taking care of that, especially the motorcycle police," said one bus operator.

The San Francisco Police Department's Traffic Company and Muni Response Team are in fact responsible for enforcing transit-only lane violations by moving vehicles.

A bus trails a driver on Mission Street who has ignored the transit-only sign.

Muni operators we spoke to are split on whether they've ever actually seen a motorist ticketed or warned for driving in transit-only lanes. Many F-line historic streetcar operators said they had witnessed occasional stings on Market Street. Nearly all Market Street and Mission Street bus drivers said they had not witnessed officers giving tickets for such violations.

The SFPD does conduct "focused enforcement" operations "several times per year," in areas that receive the most complaints, said Sgt. Wilfred Williams, a police department spokesperson.

Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City, said Muni is dependent on the SFPD to enforce cars driving in the transit-only lanes. "Those are moving violations, and we don't know how big a priority the police make of enforcing those lanes."

The Municipal Transportation Agency, Muni's parent agency, is not authorized to ticket moving vehicles, but it has taken steps to crack down on vehicles parked in transit-only lanes. In January 2008, it began a pilot program that allows Muni to place forward-facing cameras on the fronts of its buses to detect parking violations in transit-only lanes, and issue $250 parking citations based on video evidence.

"The authority of the pilot is granted only until January 1, 2012 and requires that the City and County of San Francisco present an evaluation to the transportation committees of the Legislature on or before March 1, 2011," MTA spokesperson Judson True explained in an email to Streetsblog. As of June, 636 citations had been issued.

The MTA could not provide statistics on transit-only lane enforcement or violations, but former SPUR transportation director Dave Snyder said it isn't hard to see there's a problem. "Just based on what I see out there, I think it matters a lot on the street, like enforcing transit lanes on Market Street, where you can sit there and watch buses not get a chance to pull into the bus stop because there's cars illegally in the transit lane. That's obviously a problem."

In 2004, as part of its Market Street Action Plan, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA) recommended the bus-mounted camera pilot program, which is now underway, as well as transferring responsibility for transit-lane moving violation enforcement directly to the MTA by February 2006. That would require legislative action, and has yet to happen.

The good news for enforcement is that, as Streetsblog reported recently, the MTA and the SFPD recently came to an agreement giving the MTA more control over the SFPD's Traffic Company, meaning the MTA could prioritize transit lane enforcement, though it still cannot enforce moving violations directly.

Will transit-only lane enforcement become a genuine priority for the SFPD's Traffic Company? Flickr photo: Thomas Hawk

Tony Parra, the SFPD Deputy Chief and director of Security and Enforcement for the MTA, said he's given instructions to the SFPD's Traffic Company to regularly enforce transit-only lanes. "I have given direction to [Traffic Company Commanding Officer] Captain Gregory Corrales, that our officers, throughout their daily patrol and when traveling to their assignments, are to keep the transit-only lanes open for Muni, and to enforce it as often as possible."

"What I'm trying to achieve here is regular maintenance. So not just the focused, or a canvassing of certain areas one time a year. I would like this year-round type of coverage. This should be a regular portion of the traffic enforcement's duties, and not just some type of enforcement blitz, and then we lax up on it in between."

Parra said he hopes to improve the Traffic Company's record-keeping on transit-only lane enforcement. "I oversee the Traffic Company as of July 1st this year, so we're just starting this, and their statistical personnel are looking at some of the specific requests I've made and I'm waiting to do some comparisons, 30, 60, 90 day comparisons, prior to my taking over the unit."

Though transit-only lane violations clearly remain widespread, Parra said he's received some positive feedback. "I have heard some compliments from some of the bus operators that they have noticed a difference."

As a model for enforcement, San Francisco might look to the East Bay. The Alameda County Sheriff's AC Transit division has gotten attention lately for aggressively enforcing no parking rules along AC Transit routes, and issued over $2 million in tickets last year.

For now, bus drivers are not optimistic that cars will be consistently kept out of the transit-only lanes any time soon. Asked whether more consistent enforcement might keep the transit lanes clear, a 14-Mission driver on his break near the Ferry Building laughed and patted the reporter on the shoulder. "That will be the day," he said.

Yesterday: San Francisco's transit-only lane network is an incomplete vision. 

Cars block a bus' progress on Market Street near Kearny, several blocks east of where Market's transit-only lanes end. Photo: Michael Rhodes

The Transit First policy was adopted in 1973 and the crux of it was transit lanes. When it passed, "within six months, Muni was supposed to come back to the Board of Supes with a proposal for a comprehensive set of transit lanes," said Tom Radulovich of Livable City. "So, it's an old policy in San Francisco that transit should be given priority over traffic on city streets, and that means, in many instances, dedicated lanes."

Today, there are 17.41 miles of transit-only lanes in San Francisco (see the complete list in PDF format.) About two-thirds of that lane mileage prohibits private automobiles at all times, and the rest is peak-only. The result is a patchwork that is both essential to Muni's operation, but woefully incomplete and often times confusing.

"In practice, a lot of the Muni planners have always complained that the traffic engineers will not allow them to have transit-only lanes on streets," said Radulovich. This is "out of concern of actually keeping traffic flowing."

MTA spokesperson Judson said the Transit Effectiveness Project recently completed by the MTA "recommends transit-only lanes as one technique for reducing transit travel time. TEP market research found that after reliability, Muni customers are most concerned about travel times." If the transit lanes are not available to function as intended, he said, "then Muni service cannot benefit from them."

One F-line historic streetcar driver was not afraid to offer a transit-first suggestion for how tourists who are confused by San Francisco's signs should deal: "If they're confused, then they shouldn't drive," he said.

True said the agency "recently completed an upgrade of the transit lane signs, the traffic signs that in conjunction with the street painting alert motorists to the bus only lane."

But the Municipal Transportation Agency, Muni's parent agency, admits the signs on the road aren't always clear.

New transit-only lane signs are intended to be less confusing for motorists. Photo courtesy MTA.

While many motorists could still be seen straying in and out of the transit lanes on a recent weekday, True said the new signs have improved the situation. "The before and after study conducted by our traffic engineering staff at four key intersections showed transit lane compliance improved at those locations on average nearly 40 percent. The intersections monitored, 1st and Mission, Post and Grant, 4th and Mission and 3rd and Folsom, were all monitored during PM Peak hours on weekdays."

Market Street's transit-only lanes may be the most troubled of all. They run in the center lanes from 12th Street to 5th Street inbound, and 8th Street to South Van Ness outbound. On a recent day, not only were many motorists in the transit-only lanes illegally: east of where the lane restrictions end, many motorists still appeared confused about whether they could drive in Market's center lanes. In the short period observed, many motorists swerved out of the center lanes soon after entering them, apparently believing it was unlawful to use them. This last minute swerving created a dangerous situation for other vehicles.

It also raised a question: Why aren't Market Street's center lanes transit-only all the way to the Embarcadero? "It might not be the obvious reason, which is because they didn't want to restrict cars, because they were being too friendly to cars," said former SPUR transportation director and Streetsblog contributor Dave Snyder. "It could be that they have a lot of buses in the right lane as well, and they thought it would be better to spread the cars more than shove them all in one lane. To my eyes it makes more sense to shove them all in the one lane, because they back up both lanes completely, so you might as well have one lane free."

Even though taxis are allowed to use transit-only lanes, and Market's transit-only lane ends several blocks west of here, this cab driver swerved out of the way at the last moment, apparently playing it safe. Photo: Michael Rhodes

The MTA didn't indicate any plans to add such features to Market Street, but it noted that planned Bus Rapid Transit lines on Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue will be physically segregated from lanes open to private automobile traffic.

Whether the city is successful in implementing bolder transit-only lanes will depend on political leaders' support for transit over automobiles, which has long been shaky and conditional. "It goes back to that old debate: we're a transit-first city in a policy sense, but are we a transit-first city in practice?" Said Radulovich. "And that is an open question."

Tomorrow: Drivers face little risk of getting ticketed in SF's transit-only lanes.