Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    gneiss

    The Embarcadero is multi use path – it is legal and safe for people on bikes to ride there along the entire length of the path. No one is saying anything about “scaring pedestrians”. There is still the legal requirement to yield to pedestrians.

  2.  

    murphstahoe

    The path is on the Fell side of the street – there is another path on the Oak side where bikes are prohibited. But you know that – “The mixed-use path in the Panhandle is a very different situation.I see bikes there all the time.”

    Troll.

  3.  

    roymeo

    What if I, and many others, perceive it as safer?

  4.  

    gneiss

    Then you should know that it is a designated multi-use path.

  5.  

    jonobate

    Yes I do, actually. Not that it’s relevant to the discussion. You’re just moving onto another argument because you’ve lost this one.

  6.  

    jonobate

    Seconded. He’s contributing nothing to the discussion, and preventing any possibility of useful and informative discussion taking place.

  7.  

    RichLL

    MAMIL?

  8.  

    roymeo

    I may be wrong and wrongheaded about whether I’m able to be pulled out of my vehicle by a police officer, no matter how many times I scream “I do not consent” doesn’t make it any less legal of an extraction.

    Or does perception only count when you’re doing it?

  9.  

    94110

    Oh! I know this one! Every single street designates between walkers and traffic because of a massive lobbying effort by motor vehicle manufacturers because they were getting bad press for what the dutch term “kindermurder”. (I like that term.)

    Back in the day when “wheelmen” ruled the road “scorchers” were considered rude and dangerous, but managed so few fatalities that pedestrians didn’t have to be herded to the edges.

    I have no idea when it first became against the law to bike on the sidewalks in San Francisco, but I bet it wasn’t a problem before all the scorchers bought motor vehicles and started driving “like fifty”.

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    “The Embarcadero is different because there is a regular road adjacent”

    How would you know? You’ve apparently never been there if you have no idea that the path alongside it is mixed use.

  11.  

    RichLL

    Because I am a pedestrian and I feel that way

    Moreover I do not know any pedestrians who do not. Certainly all my fellow walkers in the Panhandle feel that way.

    Still, I’m sure you know best because . . .

  12.  

    RichLL

    I’m there all the time. Evidently you are not

  13.  

    RichLL

    And the “intent of the law” is for cyclists to stop at every stop sign, which you don’t.

  14.  

    roymeo

    I ride on the street, sometimes in the restricted to bikes only lanes, sometimes in the general traffic lanes (esp when the bike only lanes are full of other things). But I’m a MAMIL. The quite wide Embarcadero Promenade is perfectly fine for the leisurely tourist and others in the 8-80 crowd that aren’t gunning to get somewhere quickly.

  15.  

    murphstahoe

    Roger – can you please banhammer this troll

  16.  

    RichLL

    Hmm, you should not ride on the sidewalk to avoid a red. As traffic you simple wait for the light to change

    If your destination in in that area, you’d simply dismount

    If you feel scared that’s another matter, but still no reason to scare pedestrians. Either get the rights of way changed to be safer , or don’t use your bike

  17.  

    murphstahoe

    “But even so if pedestrians do not expect that, like that, or feel safe with that”

    How do you know they don’t expect that?

  18.  

    murphstahoe

    Please point out how a cyclist can cross at that pathway going East at Masonic without going the wrong way on Fell.

    And explain why you pontificate on roadway issues in places you apparently have never seen before.

  19.  

    jonobate

    A cyclist cycling on a path dedicated as multi-use is not exploiting a technical limitation of the law. He’s following the intent of the law.

    If it wasn’t intended for cyclists to cycle across the Masonic crosswalk, why did the city put up bike signals next to the pedestrian ones?

  20.  

    RichLL

    Eastbound, you’d be on Oak. Still doesn’t mean you need to push in front of walkers on the crosswalk

  21.  

    RichLL

    Sure, except that we all know that you don’t. So let’s re-state the issue here

    When a cyclist can take advantage of technical limitations of the law that allow that cyclist to wander onto pedestrian paths without dismounting, then that cyclist should fully exploit the law

    But when the law inconveniences that same cyclist, then he/she is free to ignore that law because, as we all know, those laws are biased an written by commies, cheat, capitalists, morons or whatever

    Glad we cleared that up

  22.  

    murphstahoe

    If you are headed Eastbound on the panhandle path, to use the roadway to cross Masonic would require you to ride the wrong way on Fell. But what’s that between friends.

  23.  

    94110

    You’re right, the signage does suck. But it does exist: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8002346,-122.3983793,3a,75y,1.73h,76.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syl01Q5MuhV5SLa6gsHBnrw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3!6m1!1e1

    Reasons someone might choose to exercise this right:

    1. To bypass a red light at a T intersection. I’ve asked one representative of the SFMTA if there is a way to extend bike lanes through T intersections (5th and Townsend for instance), and the answer was no, you can’t engineer that legally. But sidewalks (and shared paths) do this.

    2. Your destination is on the promenade, and you are coming from the north. The promenade is bi-directional, while the bike and general traffic lanes can only legally (and safely) be ridden one direction. Crossings are somewhat rare.

    3. Safety. I’ve biked south on the Embarcadero in the bike lane on the west side after dark exactly once. Never again. Where Chestnut and Sansome, and Lombard and Battery hit there are long intersections that leave you unsafely exposed.

    In the long/medium term I believe the goal is to make the current east side bikeway bi-directional and protected. In the mean time, it is always legal, and sometimes the best answer to ride on the promenade for the reasons I’ve outlined, and possibly others.

  24.  

    RichLL

    OK, so you admit that the letter of the law is not all that matters?

    Great, we are making progess here

  25.  

    gneiss

    (see above)

  26.  

    jonobate

    Yes, for the purpose of this discussion, you should assume that.

  27.  

    Prinzrob

    Well, I’m glad I at least was able to articulate your position correctly, although I still feel like it’s an odd argument to make. Back to work for me now, it’s been interesting!

  28.  

    RichLL

    OK, so if the letter of the law is the criterion rather than what is reasonably perceived as being safe, then should we assume that you stop at every stop sign, as required by law?

  29.  

    gneiss

    While I fail to see how responding to an ad hominem attack is going to provide any solace or change your position, here what I do:

    When I ride with my daughter, I stop at every sign and stop light. When I ride by myself, I stop at most stop signs, yield to all pedestrians, and stop at all stop lights.

    For point of reference, I assume that you never roll stop signs, never go 1 mile over the speed limit, or wait until a pedestrian fully clears a pedestrian crossing before moving your wheels forward.

  30.  

    jonobate

    The law says you cannot drive in a bike lane.

    The law says you can cycle on a multi-use path, such as the northern Panhandle path, and including the crosswalk over Masonic.

    How hard is that to understand?

  31.  

    RichLL

    It may or may not be safe to use

    Sometimes as a driver it is “safe to use” a bike lane. OK with you? Because my judgement of safety trumps yours?

  32.  

    RichLL

    Exactly. There is a gross hypocrisy from the cyclist lobby here. They claim the absolute right to break the law about stopping at stop signs and lights.

    Yet when the law favors them they want absolute immunity from any considerations of reasonableness and safety.

    Perception matters and arrogance detracts.

  33.  

    gneiss

    It’s a designated Multi-use path, which means that both people riding bikes that those walking share it. It is safe for both to use.

  34.  

    RichLL

    I get that part. But even so if pedestrians do not expect that, like that, or feel safe with that, should cyclists just do it anyway?

  35.  

    RichLL

    Since you are so precise about the law, should we all assume that on a bike you stop at EVERY stop sign and light?

  36.  

    Prinzrob

    It seems that the point RichLL is trying to make is about people’s perceptions of pedestrian safety around bicyclists, regardless of the law, despite the fact that the People Behaving Badly piece was specifically about technical violations showing bicyclists “breaking the law” in situations where no pedestrian’s safety was impacted negatively.

  37.  

    RichLL

    Dude, my whole point is that you are hiding behind technicalities in the CVC to justify your selfishness

    So that argument is never going to work

    If we are going t adhere to the letter of the law, then as a cyclist stop at every stop sign!!

  38.  

    RichLL

    If you can do either why would you make a point of riding along the only place that is safe for lpdestrians

  39.  

    gneiss

    Not at all, cyclists can ride in the crosswalk around pedestrians. How is this so hard for you?

  40.  

    jonobate

    Quite. A lot of cyclists on the Embarcadero *are* toddlers, and by definition need to have their mom with them.

  41.  

    gneiss

    That’s because the CVC treats them differently. Here’s the text of that statute:

    21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

    and now the part of 21650 that applies to cyclists:

    (g) This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on any shoulder of a highway, on any sidewalk, on any bicycle path within a highway, or along any crosswalk or bicycle path crossing, where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance.

  42.  

    RichLL

    Hey, I am scared to ride a bike in some places. So I don’t. Nothing wrong with that.

    And better than instead riding on crosswalks and sidewalks where you place others in danger

  43.  

    RichLL

    So you agree that you can ride around the crosswalk?

    QED.

  44.  

    gneiss

    Treating adults like toddlers for expressing legitimate safety fears is offensive:

    “If the road scares you so much then either bring your mom or take a bus or walk.”

  45.  

    RichLL

    I feel sure you also care about pedestrian safety. But when given the choice you elect to emphasize cyclist safety even in the fact of people telling you that pedestrians don’t want to see cyclists on their walkways

    Whereupon you hide behind the technical semantics of the law rather than acknowledge the complaints. Given the choice you’d screw over pedestrians if you though it benefits the cause of cyclists

  46.  

    Prinzrob

    Resorting to ad hominem attacks doesn’t make your argument any more compelling. Please stick to the facts, and stop putting words in other peoples’ mouths.

    For the record, I spend a lot of time working on pedestrian advocacy issues. I guess I just don’t see bike and pedestrian safety solutions as mutually exclusive.

  47.  

    RichLL

    Interesting that you emphasize the difference between bikes and cars but NEVER the difference between bikes and pedestrians

    And therein lies your entire misunderstanding.

  48.  

    gneiss

    Unlike a motor vehicle, it is easy for a person on a bike to share a multi-use path with people walking. You simply ride around them.

  49.  

    RichLL

    And you can’t cross an inch to the north or south if there are pedestrians crossing?

  50.  

    chetshome

    RichLL the Embarcadero sidewalk is legally defined as a multi-user path and bikes are allowed by law. It is different from other sidewalks in SF.