Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    hp2ena

    The 14X is running 40′ buses until July because Muni at this time does not have enough 60′ buses to operate the increased service while maintaining them on the route. Most of the new articulated buses will enter service in July, which will allow them to be put back on the 14X.

  2.  

    Bruce

    The System Map page on the SFMTA website still shows the old map. The new one is buried on the Muni Forward page.

  3.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Ugh, the SFMTA! Why should we trust them? The SFMTA has only implemented dozens of projects this year that have increased ridership, like the dedicated bus lanes, all door bording & better speeds on the 5, 5L, the 14, 6, 38, 38L and 7, N-Judah just to name a few. And they are planning other things like double boarding on the underground trains to speed up time, planning BRT on Van Ness and Geary (which we oppose because it gets in the way of cars) and implement the TEP to increase travel times by 20% on average. Muni ridership has increased along with cycling, and their surveys show their rider satisfaction increasing. But seriously, why should we trust them?!? http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/muni-rider-satisfaction-increasing-survey-shows/Content?oid=2909931

  4.  

    jd_x

    @cameron_newland:disqus wote “A distraction is a distraction”

    This is true, but the problem is that, just like the damn helmet debate, it entirely distracts the conversation from the *root* cause which is a driver screwed up, injured somebody, and the cops not only didn’t ticket the driver but blamed the victim. And you realize that this happens all the time even when bicyclists are not distracted, and that could have very well could been the case here (that if the bicyclists wasn’t distracted he still would have gotten hit). So you’re missing the point and redirecting valuable resources from the root cause. When we get to the point where this doesn’t happen (where the cops aren’t so blatantly biased), then we can talk about second-order effects like should bicyclists ride distracted.

  5.  

    Jimbo

    nothing more than branding. muni still sucks

  6.  

    Dark Soul

    Can some take picture of the 14X using the 40ft buses?

  7.  

    Dark Soul

    Sorry but 9L Does not exist…. Well at least pole on the 18 Line .. that line connects to the major lines… Some should have laterns and some should not

  8.  

    Elias Zamaria

    Thanks for the tip. I will keep that in mind.

  9.  

    Elias Zamaria

    That worked. Thanks.

  10.  

    ladyfleur

    I like the idea. For those whose commutes don’t make sense (e.g. walking distance from City Hall) I’m sure they can find places to go by Muni after work or on the weekends. I don’t care if it takes them three months, they should still have to do 22 trips. No excuse not to.

  11.  

    dat

    That is a much more constructive post from you. It comes across as less condescending too, which is better also. You speak of ‘crafting a message’ which shows concern for how the message is perceived. I would like it if you thought about your comments to others on this site as much as they often come across as combative and ‘in your face’. If you reread your previous comments here I suspect you’ll see why you can be perceived as abrasive. Something about more flies with honey than with vinegar.

  12.  

    Cameron Newland

    What are you going to argue next, that it’s okay for doctors to perform operations on people while they’re playing jenga? A distraction is a distraction, period.

    Though I do value studies and objective data, you don’t need a study to realize that cycling while using a mobile phone is distracting and dangerous. I’ve done it a handful of times and I’ve been careful to do it only in situations when I didn’t have cars around me, however, having one hand away from the handlebars (and more importantly, the brake levers) means that in an emergency scenario, I would not be able to brake or evade a collision nearly as well as if I hadn’t been holding a cellphone. That means that even though I took care to reduce ancillary risks, I was still taking a risk by using my phone while on the bike, and there is some small possibility that I could have gotten in a collision or a crashed as a result, no matter how good of a cyclist I am.

  13.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Fair enough. I just think if you think there was an opportunity to craft a message a more positive message for cyclists then you don’t understand that TV media has their own agenda and is going to shape it their way 100% of the time.

  14.  

    dat

    “You’ve obviously never dealt with the media.”

    That’s a lot of presumptuousness there.

  15.  

    Aaron Bialick

    Sorry about that. The trick to getting around the paywall is to find a “share access view” link through a social media post. The easiest way to do that is to search the headline on Twitter. Sometimes I forget to do this.

  16.  

    Gezellig

    That’s the inherent problem with respectability politics:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respectability_politics

    It’s usually an exercise in futility–or at best, diminishing gains–for the minority group involved.

  17.  

    Gezellig

    Reminder, Berkeley Bike Plan open house this afternoon/evening (4:30p-7:30p)

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/04/20/berkeley-bike-plan-update-kickoff-open-house/

  18.  

    gneiss

    Nope. Riding a bicycle and talking on a cellphone or texting is not against the law. Why? Because the danger to people around you is vanishingly low, and there are *no* statistics that support the notion that texting bicyclists are causing accidents on anything like the rate that texting motorists are doing. If you disagree, please send me a study which shows otherwise.

  19.  

    Andy Chow

    According to that story about Caltrain it only resulted in a minor injury.

  20.  

    Golden Gate Shark

    I wish my neighborhood had neighborhood parking permits. Cars sit stagnant for 7 days a week. They only move to parking on the sidewalk (I can’t believe the city allows this) for an hour when its time for street cleaning. Some houses on my block have 6-7 cars and no garage. It is insanity. I would be happy to fork over the $110 a month for my car if it would thin the herd up here.

  21.  

    SF Guest

    That’s how I feel for those who own guns.

  22.  

    thielges

    Bicyclist killed at corner of Fremont and Mary in Sunnyvale this morning: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_27996724/sunnyvale-person-dies-vehicle-bicyclist-collision

  23.  

    Chris J.

    Great idea to let people know that BART is run by elected officials. However, even better would be to include the member’s phone number and e-mail address below their photo, so people can know how to get in touch.

    Incidentally, five of the nine Board members don’t even list a personal e-mail address on the BART Board web site itself: http://www.bart.gov/about/bod

    The ones not listing a personal e-mail address are: Gail Murray, John McPartland, Thomas Blalock, Zakhary Mallett, and Tom Radulovich.

  24.  

    Cameron Newland

    Nope. Mark is 100% correct. No matter what kind of vehicle you’re using, talking on a cellphone or fiddling with it or sending texts is a distraction, and is a great way to get killed or kill others. Keep hiding behind your anonimity, weirdo..

  25.  

    94110

    Regarding Cyclelicious’ legislation summary, I always think headphone laws that refer to both ears show how difficult it is to design a perfect law.

    I’m deaf in one ear. It’s legal (as far as I can tell) for me to ride/drive while listening to something in my only good ear, but if my bad ear is covered as well then I’m breaking the law.

    Just remember, chances are you are breaking some law at given time. The only question is whether the cops want to give you a ticket.

  26.  

    aslevin

    Maybe. If SF ridership triples, and a smaller share use 4th and King, that could still be more people.

  27.  

    hailfromsf

    Right. I’m not suggesting the 4th & King station will go away, but I’m sure the majority of commuters are headed downtown and will therefore choose the trains that begin/end at the transbay center. That should significantly cut down on this crowding on Townsend.

  28.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

  29.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Totally disagree.

  30.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    I disagree. You’ve obviously never dealt with the media. If I would have stayed and participated we would have had 3 separate segments on TV about how cyclists are so bad on the Wiggle that they need a ref to keep the peace which is of course not at all the point I was making.

    There was nothing I could do or say to shift them off that narrative. No there was no chance to talk about how most people are law-abiding and a few people are safety-ignoring. Sure I could have talked about it but at the end of the day they go home and cut the footage how they want.

    The only option was to walk away and not participate and let Stanley turn it in to a piece about how I got scared. What’s so bad about that? Plus I got to point out the distinction between conscientious but law-breaking riders and assholes. The only reason he ran that is because that’s all I said to him.

  31.  

    Elias Zamaria

    The link to the SFGate/Chronicle article about residential parking permits leads to a paywall. Does anyone have a link that will let me actually read it?

  32.  

    Andy B from Jersey

    Hmmm… I guess we will agree to disagree. I guess that’s what a court of law is for. Hopefully one not afflicted with windshield bias.

    Either way, care should be taken when passing any vehicle on the right. No reason to be “dead right.”

  33.  

    Jym Dyer

    @sbrisend – Your mind is clearly made up, and apparently sealed in amber if you’re calling that a “rant” and alluding to “self-righeous, screaming bikers.” You responded to my earlier point that it’s not about bikes as if some entirely different conversation was going on.

    Since you’re so terribly upset about ranting and screeching, you may wish to take it up with the gentleman who thinks the phrase “Agenda 21″, at any volume, has anything whatsoever to do with Polk Street.

  34.  

    Jamison Wieser

    SFMTA hired that design – Derek Kim – to work on the rapid branding. If you look at the samples, the chevrons being added to the Metro/Rapid shelters should look familiar.

  35.  

    Alicia

    The reason I don’t use a cargo bike is because I can only afford one bike and I don’t want that one bike to be a cargo bike. I have a trailer that I can remove or attach at will when I need to haul items. If I could afford several bikes, I would consider having a cargo bike being one of them.

  36.  

    danbrotherston

    It sure is satisfying sometimes though :P.

  37.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Contact her, she is on Facebook. I sent her a message telling her what I think of her stance.

  38.  

    SF_Abe

    ???

  39.  

    Pascual Arrechea

    Period? Really? Once you realize your claim makes no sense, you intend to silence people who don’t agree with this absurd. Come on, man! Review your claim and acknowledge when you are just whining for no reason except your own frustration. And accept peoples opinion once in a while!!

  40.  

    Dark Soul

    Lets make new about the new signs

  41.  

    aslevin

    The “plan” to have only partial Caltrain service to Transbay dates back to an earlier version of the High Speed Rail business plan where HSR was wanting to have 10-12 high speed trains per direction per hour serving transbay. That number got reduced to a more realistic 3-4, which is the level of service for Paris-London and NY-DC. There are going to be important decisions made in the next few months about Caltrain/HSR compatibility that may affect the ability for Caltrain to provide full service to Transbay.

    Even when the downtown extension to Transbay is completed, may it happen speedily in our lifetimes, there will still be a need for service to the SOMA/Mission Bay Area, so I expect a station to be somewhere near 4th/King, instead of closing it.

  42.  

    aslevin

    Last I heard, this was low priority for SFMTA and also low priority for the SFBC. Has anybody tried to talk to Supervisor Kim, yet? Anyone interested in doing so?

  43.  

    hp2ena

    If you don’t like where SFTRU is going, why not get on their board, as they have vacancies? The board – not the members – make most of the decisions anyway.

  44.  

    BK

    He comes off even slimier in the YouTube comments.

    Keep it classy, Stanley

  45.  

    MrEricSir

    Hundreds of thousands rely on Muni every day. Calling it a “challenge” to ride Muni is frankly rather insulting.

  46.  

    Prinzrob

    I would say CVC 21755 backs up Bernardi’s argument more than anything. When a bicyclist chooses to pass a car on the right they do so under conditions they deem to be safe (eg clear path of travel), in line with the law.

    When a car passenger opens a door into the path of the bicyclist it changes the conditions unexpectedly, in a way the cyclist could not have anticipated any more than they could a squirrel running into the street or a sinkhole opening up in front of them. However, the door-opening passenger is able to anticipate their own action, and therefore has more responsibility to avoid striking the bicyclist.

    Substitute the bike for a car in this scenario and it becomes more clear where the fault should be. If a driver leaves enough room for another car to pass on the right, then their passenger opens the right side door without looking, hitting a passing car in the process, then who would be at fault? That a bicycle is more narrow than a car does not change the dynamics of the situation.

  47.  

    AndreL

    This is the sort of demagoguery politicians should stay well clear of. SFTRU is an organization not to be trusted anyway. So even politicians that support transit should not validate this so-called “challenge” and work to undermine STFRU.

  48.  

    Amy Smolens

    It’s absolutely absurd that a 90 y/o driver who turns left into the path of a vehicle with the right of way is not cited. But, unfortunately, we’ve all seen way too much of this.
    If all of you commenters and readers would pass a few “Check for Bikes” window/windshield clings (www.checkforbikes.org + on Facebook) on to friends, neighbors and colleagues, at least we’d create more awareness of us bicyclists and help prevent some of the collisions that occur when people are in a rush and don’t look for cyclists.
    Thanks.

  49.  

    theqin

    Price definitely plays some part as its not just a on-whim kind of purchase, but they do have pretty good resale value, so I don’t think price is the primary factor. Plenty of people drop thousands of dollars on road bikes, and these aren’t generally the same kind of people riding cargo bikes.

    I mean it might be a chicken in the egg kind of problem, people don’t necessarily know or think that an alternative exists, or that this alternative actually works and is not just a fringe thing. It certainly doesn’t help that you don’t see cargo bikes in most bike stores.

    Hopefully adoption will increase if the current casual bike to work crowd has children, but I don’t see it as a fast process. Especially since biking facilities in SF can be a little iffy sometimes — like I never like biking anyone on the fell and oak part of the wiggle, even I don’t have problems with some other bike lanes on busy streets. And I know that I am definitely not the typical person, probably most people would be even more afraid to take their kid their with good reason.

  50.  

    Andy B from Jersey

    Thanks for sharing that link. I love Rick Bernardi and Bob Mionske but for once I actually think that they both misinterpreted the law by NOT considering CVC 21755 in their analysis. I also lost a little respect for the two for quickly turning to calling Paul Schimek names. It was VERY unprofessional of them to never address his point about CVC 21755. Poor form on those two, and considering CVC 21755, I think the two of them are wrong but I still could be wrong if it went to court.

    I’ve done quite a bit of research on bicycle laws to help New Jersey move forward in updating our bike laws. I do know that California’s Vehicle Code is MUCH different to that of almost all other states. As such I’ll admit that I’m no expert on California law. However I do know that other states have provision for cyclists to pass right (NJ does not) but must do so in a safe manner and at their own risk.