Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Sure, keep deluding yourself that collisions are always the fault of the victim, so that you don’t have to do anything about it.



    I mean yes, absolutely, but MTC would take 12 years and outsource the job to Cubic, who would screw it up and tack on massive fees for every change because the contract didn’t bother to predict that fare structures might change over the life of the system. Muni, if they are doing it right, just needs a fairly simple app with the ability to select a fare, make a payment, and display a timer, perhaps with a bit of server-side magic to help prevent fraud.


    Darksoul SF

    and allow exploits for free rides.


    Darksoul SF

    It looks like you weren’t paying attention.


    Andy Chow

    I think this can be a side extension of Clipper, for those who don’t have Clipper cards and markets that Clipper doesn’t do well, such as family or group travel. The way the apps are being implemented now will be separate from the Clipper card system, and fares will be examined visually by employees rather than through a device, which is okay for now but until most phones have NFC, won’t work on BART or a replacement for plastic cards.



    I love to drive.



    My argument does not hinge on stats and “real data and research,” – yes, you are correct!



    Then quit responding. Nobody asked you. I’m not stats-obsessed; sue me.



    Yes. This should be part of the Clipper 2.0 specs, not something attempted by one of the many transit agencies in the region.



    I had the experience of a driver deliberately attempting to run me down while I was cycling back from Hardly Strictly on Saturday. Here’s how it happened.

    I was turning left from Conservatory Drive East onto JFK Drive. I came to a full stop at the stop sign. There were pedestrians in the crosswalk, so I waited for them to clear. While I was waiting a car went through the intersection westbound on JFK; after that car had passed through the next westbound car stopped at its stop sign. Eastbound was clear, so I entered the intersection. Three other cyclists who were stopped behind me entered the intersection at the same time.

    Once I was approaching the center of the intersection I realized that the westbound car that was stopped was now accelerating into the intersection and our paths were about to cross. People were yelling at the driver to stop but he just kept his foot on the gas. I managed to stop just in time and the car shot past me inches from my front tire. He then screeched to a stop at the other side of the intersection because traffic was backed up almost to the intersection.

    I approached the driver and asked him what the fuck he was doing. He said “Look, the law says that you have to go one at a time through the intersection. You guys always go through in groups. I’m not going to play that game with you guys.”

    I told him that I was the first person through that intersection, and it wasn’t my fault if other people followed behind me; and that you don’t get to deliberately run someone down, even if you think they broke a traffic law. He didn’t argue back. I told him he was an asshole, and left.

    The reason for recounting this story is that I think this sort of behavior is the logical result of Capt. Sanford’s bike crackdown. The law that says each cyclist must go through the intersection one by one is similar to the law that says cyclists must come to a full stop at stop signs – it’s impractical, has little or no safety value, and would just tie up traffic if everyone followed it to the letter. The wiggle stop-in protest illustrated that quite effectively.

    By demanding that every cyclist obeys the letter of the auto-centric traffic law (because “safety”) you send the message that if any cyclist doesn’t obey the letter of law then they deserve whatever happens to them. A certain number of drivers who see themselves as vigilante types will then be encouraged to punish cyclists through violence if they see any violation of the law. Additionally, by specifically targeting a minority of road users you encourage drivers to see that minority as a faceless group (“you guys”), and blame all members of that group for the violations of some of that group.

    Note that I’m not blaming ‘drivers’ or ‘cars’ in general for the incident that occurred on Saturday; rather the problem is our auto-centric traffic laws, and auto-centric enforcement of those laws, that create the conditions that cause some idiot drivers to think they have the right to run people down.


    old mission

    I hoped the “smartphone ticketing app” would allow anyone to report cars parked in bike lanes, traffic lanes, other peoples’ driveways, etc–like 311, except the car could be ticketed–not as a moving violation, but as a parking violation.


    Andy Chow

    I somehow wondered by MTC didn’t take the lead when it comes to mobile app for payment. We complain about having so many transit agencies, but that wouldn’t matter so much if the experience is more integrated. So do we really need a separate app for Muni, another for Caltrain, and another for VTA? A single app should handle them all.



    Oh come on. That’s pretty offensive. There are plenty of reasonable arguments for and against better bike infrastructure and laws that don’t resort to comparisons like this.


    Andy Chow

    If TNC companies like Lyft intend to sell its technologies and enable transit agencies to provide app-enabled “dial a ride” service with their employees and contractors, I think that’s fine. But if their idea is to have their “gig economy” cars to be a form of public transit, or even receiving public subsidy, I think it is dangerous.



    What percent of people are handicapped/disabled, yet we have *mandated* infrastructure for their use everywhere? You need to look up “tyranny of the majority”:

    One of the founding principles of this country is that the minorities have rights and don’t just get trampled by the lynch mob. It’s not a popularity contest — we debate points of view on their own merit not by how popular they are. All that popularity is used for is electing leaders; thereafter, we judge points of view on their content. After all, all new ideas by their very definition of being new start as only being accepted by the minority, so nothing would every change if everything was a popularity contest.

    Bicyclists and pedestrians are being killed and maimed by the hundreds every year in this city alone and you seem to be saying their lives don’t matter since they are *only* 140,000. When you step back and think about it, doesn’t that sound pretty bad? Bicyclists are asking for the laws to change to recognize that they are patently not cars and that the current system isn’t protecting. It’s absurd that you don’t think that’s a valid point of view just because it’s not the majority.



    Then don’t expect the listener to care about your opinion.



    You’re not very good at ducking out.



    10% of the US population is African American. Why would we abolish slavery?






    Or plenty of unmarked, uncontrolled crosswalks at intersections where there is no stop sign or traffic light. Unless signed as closed to pedestrians, these locations are also pedestrian priority.



    This comment is the answer to the question “why an Idaho stop law in SF will improve safety”.

    It’s not because a stop-as-yield law will inherently change bicyclist behavior, as most people biking in the city are already treating stops as yields. What it will do is make it clear to the PD what constitutes unsafe bicyclist behavior so they can concentrate their enforcement efforts on that instead of just wasting time ticketing safe, rolling stops with no right-of-way violations as they have been doing. I wish this wasn’t necessary but sadly the SFPD have shown that they are unable to apply this kind of discretion when left to their own devices.

    Anyone (myself included) who wants bicyclists that cut off pedestrians in a crosswalk to be penalized should support an Idaho stop law so that actual, dangerous behavior will be be targeted for enforcement.



    I really don’t give a s***. I have no burden of proof.



    In other words, you expect us to take your word for it and ignore real data and research.



    “Lax” cycling laws? They’re only lax if you think a bicycle is a car. What is happening here is that, as bicycling grows, those who use this method of transit are fed up with being expected to act like a motor vehicle since it is nonsense in almost every way, from how much power the two methods require to how many people they kill and maim to how much space they take up in our crowded cities to how much pollution they cause. This idea that making different laws for bicycles than for cars is somehow “lax” is the perception that needs to change. Making progress, by definition, requires changing perceptions and laws and this has been true for just about every major issue from smoking laws to women’s rights. Laws are not the word of god which cannot be changed and in fact the point of our society is to constantly question them and make them better. It is no secret that the unique needs of bicyclists have long been neglected in urban design (and until recently, this was because there were so few of them), so it makes a *lot* of sense to be re-evaluating them as bicycling grows and its many benefits are slowly being acknowledged while the costs of building a society around the automobile are also slowly being acknowledged. And if, in this process, people question laws that were clearly made when times were different and you have a problem with this, then I’m afraid it’s you that comes across as not looking so good.



    I guess all I’m saying is that in these types of discussions, people in favor of lax cycling laws don’t represent themselves particularly well.



    The data is being a pedestrian in SF for 30 years. This is why Park Station started enforcing in the first place – complaints – not because of some vast motorist conspiracy against bicyclists.



    I’m going to figure you just got carried away by suggesting a disagreement with your viewpoint makes one ‘psychotic.’

    I’m just saying, why would you make policy that affects the majority, just to please what can only be described as as small minority – no way around that – 17% is just not a very big percentage. I’m just trying to understand why 17% is an important number to you. It seems like the opposite of a good argument to say policy should be made to satisfy a small minority of citizens, but maybe I am missing something.



    What? Arguing with you means someone is part of the bike lobby? What are you then, part of the “car lobby”? And if that’s your criteria, then for every opinion you have on every subject, you are now in the lobby for whatever political group also has that opinion. Seems kinda silly, doesn’t it?

    Reading your comments and inability to counter the points made against your position and just fleeing the conversation instead, your position actually seems to bolster the pro-bicycle case and make your position (which I’m unclear on: that bikes should continue to be treated as cars even though about the only thing they have in common is the use of wheels?) less persuasive. Of course, I guess I’m part of the “bike lobby”, so what does my opinion matter?



    Are you really that psychotic that the voices of over 140,000 people don’t matter? Wow. Just wow.



    Please, provide the data. Thank you.



    Bicyclists won’t yield. They already don’t yield, and it is against the law. They won’t be more likely to yield if the law is relaxed.



    So 700,000 don’t?



    Okay, how about this then – 142,365 people in the city of San Francisco. Mothers, fathers, brothers, daughters, sisters, and sons all cycle at least once a week.



    As I’ve said before and you continue to ignore, if a cyclist fails to yield for either cross traffic or pedestrians after this legislation is passed they can still get a ticket, just like a car driver can if a driver fails to yield at an uncontrolled crosswalk during a pedestrian safety program. All this does is recognize that bicycles are fundamentally different vehicles from cars, in that they don’t represent the same danger nor have the same issues with regards to sight lines and speed that motorist do and can safely navigate an intersection without the need to come to a complete stop. There is data that backs this up, in that the crash rate for cyclists decreased after the Idaho Stop law was put into effect.



    Wow, 17%. Blowing me away, here.



    When drivers approach a stop sign, many will ‘yield’. If they had a yield sign, many would roll through. Bicylclists will do the same.



    No I don’t want to “deflect attention” onto anything but I do want to talk about the real risks to pedestrians. You are like the guy who always wants to talk about 9/11 and the threat of terrorism when the issue of gun violence comes up.



    Lots of people care. You don’t care and you think everyone is exactly like you in their biases and concerns, but you are incorrect. The 17% of San Franciscans who cycle at least one a week care.



    So what you’re saying is that apart from being a hypocrite, Mayor Lee has a cynical desire to divide cyclists and pedestrians… so presumably he may conquer both in his quest to pay no more than lip service to Vision Zero?



    Given the headline, what did you expect? Another five examples where the Mayor isn’t being a hypocrite? I cannot see how that would add balance to this story. The purpose of the story is to point out the mayor is a hypocrite. Maybe you will give us an example of how you would have written that story?



    Agreed. A good way of thinking about it is what happens at uncontrolled crosswalks where vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians. That doesn’t mean you drive through the intersection while a person is walking, but you do stop if you need to in order to allow people to safely navigate the crossing.



    I’d rather Amsterdamize the hell out of the place.



    Just to clarify, bicyclists would have to yield, which in some cases does mean stop. For the poor folks trying to wrap their heads around this modest proposed rule change, it might be confusing to use the phrase, “yield rather than stop.” Better to say, “yield but not necessarily stop.”



    I’m not sure what you’re asking for since drivers constantly roll through stops and I’ve NEVER seen or heard of a driver pulled over for doing that. I have seen people on bikes given tickets for rolling through stops. And yes, I think it’s ok for drivers to roll through stops at low speeds as long as they yield correctly and are able to stop if needed. Many cities around the world have very few stop signs, because the drivers are capable of doing this safely. Drivers here…they don’t see a stop sign and they just hit the gas. If you need examples, go out to the Sunset or Richmond at the few intersections that don’t have stops in all directions.



    Should a car be able to go through the stop sign as long as it yields to whoever has the right of way? If you let bikes do it I don’t really see why cars won’t demand the same right – and just start doing it, since willfully ignoring the law seems to be working for the cyclists.

    Everyone thinks he’s a good driver and that he knows when it’s safe to ignore the traffic laws. That’s what they’ll claim – there was no one at the intersection and no risk to anyone, so why should I have to stop?


    Opus the Poet

    Even on my city bike I can come to a complete stop for several seconds without dabbing while I look both directions. My recumbents are a bit trickier, but I have maintained balance while stopped and looking and not putting a foot down, TBH on the one I can leave my feet clipped in and hold myself up with a hand touching the ground (still not a foot).



    Based on what I’ve heard police officers say and do, my impression is that a sizable number of them believe that people riding bicycles simply don’t belong in the same space as car drivers, and that it’s downright irresponsible for bicycle riders to be on those streets. In fact, they would like to argue that people riding bicycles should accept the fact that they are risking their lives riding next to cars anyway and that it’s their fault for being them where they could potentially get hurt in the first place. This has the perverse affect of allowing the police to write citations for ‘unsafe speed’ or ‘passing on the right’ because they don’t believe the bicyclists should even have been on the road, and if they’d just driven a car or taken a bus like everyone else, this ‘accident’ wouldn’t have happened.

    I think the only way to effectively counter these arguments is to continue to build infrastructure specifically for bicycle riders on high speed high volume arterials, and in residential neighborhoods, design streets to support speeds to near what cyclists already go at, between 15-20 mph.


    Darksoul SF

    N-Judah not going anywhere despite of the improvements… They should stop putting so many money.



    ‘Why is that such a hard concept for [me]’? I am just going to duck out of this conversation before it gets anymore saturated with hubris. Bike lobby doesn’t do itself any favors.



    Not true. We have plenty of mid-block crosswalks that don’t require vehicles to stop, but rather to yield. Why is this such a hard concept for you?