Nevius finally gets a handlebar perspective. Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

It’s safe to assume that one year ago few bicycle riders who read the Chronicle would have ever imagined that Chuck Nevius would one day declare: “Bikes are the future. We need to do a better job of dealing with it.”

But that’s exactly what happened yesterday. Nevius’ sudden embrace of “the inevitable conclusion” is a milestone as bicycling becomes more and more mainstream in San Francisco.

“After all,” concedes Nevius, “more people than ever are pedaling the streets of San Francisco … riding a bike to work makes sense for even those who aren’t fanatic bike messenger types.”

You read that right. Not only did Nevius have an epiphany riding the Wiggle and write a column about it, but said he now uses a bicycle three times a week.

Nevius reintroduced himself into the urban wild just over a year ago after 20 years in captivity in Walnut Creek. If Chuck is an indicator species of cultural attitudes towards cycling as transportation, the experience has been nothing less than a metamorphosis from his windshield-perspective cocoon.

In the eyes of Nevius two years ago, San Francisco could never be a bicycle-friendly place, and to pursue such an idea would be to impose “the wishes of the few versus the needs of the many.” And in those days, daring to cross the street with him behind the wheel was just asking for it (now, it’s his bike lane you shouldn’t “cluelessly stroll into”).

Drivers, according to Nevius as late as January, were being “singled out because they own a car, drive in the city, and reliably pay their bills. And they are tired of being treated as the city’s cash cow.”

But now, it would seem he has since taken former Streetsblog reporter Matthew Roth’s suggestion and “ridden in that small crevice between the door zone and speeding traffic and wondered why a mode of travel you’ve chosen should feel so fraught with peril.”

After being “cut off, nearly hit, and honked at while riding in a bike lane,” Nevius has seen the light: ”Bicycling is for grown-ups. It’s time everyone acted like it.”

You might even spot him at Critical Mass tonight. After all, he says, it’s “mostly harmless good times.”

After you finish rubbing your eyes and wondering if you really just saw that, think for a minute: It’s fair to say that, wherever you live in the United States, you’ve never seen reporting like what you see in this clip — not even if the victims had died. Not even if they were high profile actors or members of society. Not even if dramatic video existed of the crash itself.

We’ve got a tough hill to climb if we want to see quality reporting on street safety using this kind of terminology. For instance, here in New York City we are dealing with a press that salivates any time they hear any mention of the word “bike.” Pavlov would be proud. The television and print media portray cyclists as if they were a menace to society, like bedbugs in need of extermination. The constant barrage of late has been unrelenting, depressing and biased.

In particular, CBS2 in NYC has devoted so much time to negative bicycling stories — constantly getting the facts wrong — you have to wonder how much of it is sloppy reporting and how much is a vendetta. After all, this is the same network that has chosen to use “Bike Bedlam” as their choice buzz phrase to file many of these stories under. Yet when pedestrians or cyclists are hurt or killed by reckless drivers, we don’t see them grouping these tragedies under banners like “Drivers Amok” or “Cars Out of Control.”

The big problem is that all television news crews have a bias that they cannot ignore: They drive nearly everywhere to file their stories. They see the expanding bike infrastructure and pedestrian plazas as eating up road space. To them this is a growing threat which makes it harder to drive their news vans and do their jobs. Thus, they have a vested interest in being critical of bike lanes, which affects who they decide to interview, what footage they use, the edits they make, the “facts” they accept.

I remember in August 2008, after being interviewed about the city’s upcoming Summer Streets, CBS anchor Don Dahler (shown here driving distracted in a report on distracted driving) turned to me and remarked that closing streets for these kinds of events makes it hard to get around the city.

Our press should be doing a much better job educating viewers and being aware of how their own bias is affecting their reporting. The Netherlands video is aptly titled “When Cyclists Matter.” So far here in the Big Apple, most of the media hasn’t gotten that message.

(Chart:
University of Vermont Transportation Research Center)

The
success of state-level plans to increase gas taxes is tied to the
media’s portrayal of the proposals in question, with narratives tied to
"crumbling infrastructure" and "economic progress" showing more success
than those emphasizing long-term transportation budget gaps, according
to a new report released by the University of Vermont’s Transportation
Research Center (TRC).

The TRC report examined six states where lawmakers debated raising
gas taxes to close infrastructure budget gaps between 2006 and 2009.
Three of the states ultimately approved gas tax increases (Oregon,
Minnesota, and Vermont) — two of them over the opposition of the
governor, as seen in the third column of the above chart — and three of
the state (Massachusetts, Idaho, and New Hampshire) nixed the proposed
tax increases.

While acknowledging that "there are many possible explanations for
the success and failure of gasoline tax increases at the state level,"
TRC researcher Richard Watts attempted to categorize the "frames" used
to depict the proposals in local media as well as the Associated Press
wire service.

Watts broke down the most popular media narratives by whether they
emphasized arguments made by supporters or opponents of the proposed tax
hikes. The most common so-called "pro frames" focused on each state’s
decaying infrastructure, which would be in line for a boost thanks to
new gas tax revenues; the economic upside of improving travel times and
creating jobs by pursuing more gas tax-funded repair projects; and the
long-term benefits of solving persistent budget crises by raising fuel
fees.

Watts also marked off three frequently used "anti frames": broad
opposition to tax increases of any kind; a perceived public preference
for cutting other government spending before resorting to raising taxes;
and the economic downside of raising fuel charges during a recession.

The report did not show an across-the-board correlation between
positive portrayals of higher gas taxes and the ultimate passage of
state-level proposals to that effect. As seen in the above chart, media
coverage in five out of the six states studied featured a majority of
"pro frames," yet two of those states failed to act on gas tax
legislation.

But the nature of the media narratives used did appear to have an
effect on the success of state-level tax increases. From Watts’ report:

In Vermont and Minnesota, crumbling infrastructure
comprised the majority of the pro-gas tax frames. This is a powerful
frame that carries images of collapsing bridges, aging and deteriorating
roadways, threats to physical health and a system in dire jeopardy. …

In Massachusetts and Idaho the dominant pro-gas tax frame was
long-term solution – displayed about 75 percent of total pro-gas tax
frames. This frame emphasized funding and financial mechanisms and lacks
the imagery of crumbling infrastructure. In both states the debate in
the news discourse became about transportation system funding, not the
deteriorating system.

Another wild card, according to Watts’ research, was the "media
standing" of the public figures making pro- or anti-gas tax arguments.
In Massachusetts, for example, he found insufficient data to explain the
source of the media’s emphasis on the more wonkish "long-term solution"
frame — whether it was also the dominant narrative of Gov. Deval
Patrick (D), a tax-hike supporter, or whether it dominated the debate
for other reasons.

Nonetheless, the report could provide food for thought for House
transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), as his
party’s resistance to a federal gas tax increase continues to force
a challenging search for alternative transport financing tactics.

An artist’s rendering of the Woodall Rogers Deck project
in Dallas. (Photo: U. of MN)

The Star-Telegram story, which soon got snapped up
by the Associated Press, begins by challenging Dallas’ Woodall Rogers
Deck Park, a groundbreaking
effort to cap the city’s Woodall Rogers Freeway and create a
5.2-acre green space for the public. The park, aimed at creating a
walkable link between Dallas’ local districts, received
$16.7 million in stimulus funding from the Obama administration.

From the Star-Telegram:

The Woodall Rodgers project is a glaring example of how,
at a
time when many Texans distrust their transportation leaders, huge
chunks of federal and state money are being spent on projects that have
little or nothing to do with directly improving traffic.

"Texans
should be outraged by it, especially when they’re being asked to
support tax increases for transportation," said Justin Keener, vice
president for policy and communications at the Texas Public Policy
Foundation, a nonpartisan research institute in Austin.

The Star-Telegram reviewed 515 state projects awarded
funds
under the federal transportation enhancement program during the past 18
years and found projects large and small that had little to do with
mobility.

As it happens, the "nonpartisan" Texas Public Policy Foundation
makes no bones about its political alignment on its website, which outlines a
mission of "limited government" and offers a litany of pro-industry
critiques of the Democratic health care bills.

The group’s leadership is stocked with veteran advisers to
Republican Gov. Rick Perry (TX), and chairman of the board Wendy
Lee Gramm is a former Enron lobbyist who
aided her husband Phil Gramm, a former Texas GOP senator, in his
late-1990s push to de-regulate Wall Street.

Yet aside from Gramm’s group, the Star-Telegram story includes no
sources criticizing Texas transportation enhancements, which have
received $997 million since the program began in 1991.

One of the five members of Texas’ transport commission told the
newspaper that "we didn’t ask for" the federal requirement, and reporter
Gordon Dickson notes that some federal enhancements funding may be
misdirected thanks to state legislators’ eagerness to earmark the money
for local pet projects.

But on the whole, the newspaper’s criticism of quality-of-life
improvements appears out of left field — until the second half of the
piece, when its preferred alternative becomes clear:

It’s difficult to say how much $997 million [over 18
years] would buy if it could be used on highway lane construction
instead of enhancements. … The $997 million would be enough to build
eight miles of Southwest
Parkway from Interstate 30 to Dirks Road — and make it a freeway
instead of a toll road as planned.

Ah, the mournful pull of highway lanes not built — especially in a
Texas road system that
ranked No. 1 in size but No. 17 in efficiency, according to the
pro-free-markets Reason Foundation.

For a more balanced local take on the issue, check out Dallas
Morning News reporter Michael Lindenberger’s response
to the Star-Telegram.

C.W. Nevius's column in the Chronicle today ("S.F. a dangerous city for careless pedestrians") is a great example of blaming the victim, ignoring data, and misrepresenting the experts you quote. But it wouldn't be Nevius otherwise, would it?

Here's the gist: Nevius says that high pedestrian collision numbers in San Francisco are the fault of careless pedestrians. How does he know this? Because a man who witnessed a pedestrian fatality on Van Ness last Friday said the woman walked in front of a car that had a green light.  Never mind that an MTA collision report for 2007 (PDF) found that pedestrians are only involved in 26 percent of all injury collisions on San Francisco streets and are only the cause of one third of those collisions, which means drivers are at fault two thirds of the time.

But who has time for rigorous data, when I'm just trying to prove a point in my column, facts be damned?

Nevius also misrepresents Ana Validzic, pedestrian and traffic safety coordinator for the Department of Public Health, who confirms that awareness is hugely important in avoiding collisions. The problem is, he quotes Validzic immediately after a sentence about how pedestrians not paying attention are likely to end up "bouncing off the windshield." He's undoubtedly right about that, but his placement of Validzic's quote implies that she's blaming pedestrians for most crashes.

In fact, she told Streetsblog today, she meant all users of the street need to pay more attention.

"He had heard a previous opinion saying that pedestrians don't pay any attention, and it sounded like it was only the pedestrians' fault," said Validzic. "I was really trying to balance that opinion out by saying, no, I don't think that's true. I think that's true of all users, that there are times where drivers aren't paying attention, where pedestrians aren't paying attention, where anybody else is not paying attention, and then there's a collision because of that, or even a near miss."

While Nevius notes that the city's "narrow, quirky streets" - he's not referring to Van Ness Avenue, presumably - slow cars down, keeping pedestrian fatality figures from being even higher, he baffles a bit with his conflicting statements about how engineering can improve the situation.

"Designs by engineers cannot force us to pay attention," Nevius asserts. But shortly after he seems fascinated by "naked streets," shared road spaces stripped of most street signs, which he notes can lead to drastic decreases in collisions by forcing everyone to navigate the space carefully and be more aware. Sounds promising. 

In the end, though, he decides naked streets won't work here because "traffic engineers say the city's traffic grid doesn't work well for roundabouts."

As WalkSF's Manish Champsee points out in a response he wrote to Nevius, there's more hope for naked streets in San Francisco than traffic engineers evidently told Nevius:

While "roundabouts" might not work in much of San Francisco, there is a smaller version of these known as "traffic circles" that are appropriate for neighborhood streets. Berkeley and Seattle have used traffic circles with great success, Seattle seeing many intersections go to 0 crashes. We attempted these in 2004 on Page St., however, they were a failure because the circles weren't large enough as per best practices in other cities.

Regardless of how genuinely interested in traffic calming solutions Nevius is, he never acknowledges that motorists in multi-ton metal vehicles share that burden as much or more than those on foot. He then makes it pretty clear how lopsided his bias is against pedestrians with the accolades he gives the deplorable video above when he linked it on his blog.

Though he concludes that "we will probably just stick with what we have - whizzing traffic, overconfident pedestrians and the blind faith that the two will not collide" fortunately for the people who live in San Francisco, pedestrian advocates aren't ready to admit defeat so quickly.

33 Stanyan making the turn at Market and Clayton

Though Chronicle Watch can at times be interesting, today's post is misleading, even oxymoronic. The headline "Muni Buses Delay Traffic at Intersection" implies cars are more important, though San Francisco's Transit First policy mandates the MTA and other agencies prioritize the movement of buses, light rail vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians before motorists.

Jonathan Curiel quotes the driver who originally complained to the Chronicle, calling the bus delay a "traffic hazard," though he offers nothing to substantiate the claim. The bias in his reporting is frustrating enough, but Curiel goes on to say "Though the backup (and delay) were considerably shorter when Chronicle Watch visited the scene, the signal caused enough of an imposition to forward Fasman's concern to the [MTA]."

If minor delays due to turning buses is an imposition on drivers, then that is the cost of maintaining a policy that privileges the needs of the many over the comfort of a few.  Solo drivers should not have priority over buses or trains. 

Though this is not as irresponsible as the sham "investigation" into bicycle crashes the Chronicle published last March, it does nothing to improve the image of the transit operators responsible for making transit function better.  And it's particularly damaging when the paper disparages (even indirectly through the frustrated driver) one of the minority of intersections in the city where transit has priority.

MTA Spokesman Judson True went remarkably soft on the paper, saying the  priority for the MTA at the intersection is "to accommodate the buses" and to "ensure the safety of the intersection, we want to save as many seconds as we can."

Insisting that the Chronicle understands the Transit First Policy, True repeated his message to Streetsblog: "There’s no reason we should create traffic congestion as long as the signal is allowing the bus to get through."

Joel Pomerantz, who describes himself as a regular 33 Stanyan passenger for 25 years, had a different take on the intersection:

The only time there is a "many minutes" backup is when the cars ignore their signals and stop lines, after which they suddenly see the bus and stop in the middle of the bus's turn area, and have to wiggle out of it, sometimes backward. With cars behind them, that can be a mess. Otherwise, three buses can go through in under one minute (I've seen it)--at least now that the turning radius has improved by scrapping the older buses.

Flickr photo: octoferret