Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – And all the pollution to generate the electricity will be off in Richmond or somewhere that we don’t see and never have to worry about the communities of color who live downwind of it. Just clear ocean breezes for our technological epic grooviness!

  2.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Jimbo – I assume your source to substantiate these claims is the same one you failed to produce on Hoodline, SFist, etc. — pretty much anywhere that uses Disqus.

  3.  

    Jym Dyer

    @roymeo – You’re either awfully precocious for a 7yo, or a very young-looking 81yo.

  4.  

    gneiss

    Yes, now I remember – this poster has a significant problem with bicyclists on shared use paths. That account was banned before for arguing the same point over and over again on sharing space with bicyclists on the panhandle.

  5.  

    murphstahoe

    Yes – under my nom de plume “RoyTT”

  6.  

    Alicia

    We don’t “fear different views,” we just roll our eyes at you and your ilk who are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and constantly make dumb comments. That’s not the same as fearing “different views.”

  7.  

    roymeo

    The Embarcadero designates separate space for MUNI Metro trains, general vehicle traffic, bicycles, general vehicle parking, pedestrians only, and a mixed-use path area for pedestrians and cyclists.
    Not sure if skateboarders are allowed anywhere in there.
    (And of course there’s the various City and Port vehicles that go wherever they want.)

  8.  

    roymeo

    I’m one of those anal types that really chafes at seeing someone drive around traffic in the median/bikelane, ride through stop signs/lights, salmon, wave samurai swords at church, walk out into the middle of the street on red, etc. I feel concern for people that do dumb-but-not-illegal things like walk around staring at their phones, etc. but I think the blame goes on the rule breakers.
    I saw a local Nextdoor post where a woman told us to be careful at night–her brother was wearing black at night and got hit and killed by a car. She blamed her brother, called the driver to make sure he wasn’t feeling bad. I guess this was the one guy who’s day it was to drive the speed limit and pay appropriate attention while driving and we really couldn’t do anything but blame the victim. (I was somehow able to pull some restraint out of somewhere and didn’t comment on Nextdoor.)

  9.  

    als

    But when do you bring your Mom along?

  10.  

    Chris J.

    The pattern seems to be that he always has to be the last one to respond. So if you reply to him, he will always reply back to have the last word (even if it’s to repeat exactly what he said before). Hence so many posts.

  11.  

    roymeo

    Really impressed with the coverage and focus on learning about what is happening in the San Mateo Council Debates Renters Protections story.

  12.  

    jd_x

    “It is not clear to me why my quiet enjoyment of the walkway there should ever be disrupted by a vehicle too lazy to traverse the road.”

    Stop this over-dramatization. First, I’m sure you agree that, regardless of the letter of the law, a car and a bicycle are very, very different (from mass to speed to power used to having senses impaired) and lumping a bicycle into “traffic” on the path is completely ridiculous and over-dramatic. The danger to a pedestrian from a bicyclist riding on the mixed-used path on Embarcadero is less than the danger to a bicyclist forced into the terrible bike lanes on Embarcadero (go check statistics for this). This isn’t about “lazy” but about people (bicyclists) who are treated as second-class citizens on our roads and given dangerous conditions so that others (motorists) can have convenient (and safe) conditions. Everyone would love to have a protected bicycle lane on Embarcadero, but until that happens, the risk to pedestrians from bicyclists on the mixed-use path (which is a small percentage, and then the vast majority are hardly riding faster than a jogger) is a non-issue in SF.

  13.  

    RichLL

    I think you are correct that pedestrian see cars as a bigger threat than bikes. Cars have killed maybe 200 people in the last 5 years and cyclists have only killed 2.

    Even so, don’t you think that the best solution is for these very different modes of transit to be fully segregated? And that cyclists should not seek to deter what might otherwise be a key ally?

  14.  

    gneiss

    Oh? So tell me – how different are bicycles from people walking when compared to the difference between cars and bicycles and pedestrians?

    Let’s think about how they are similar first:

    1. They don’t travel fast – most bicycle riders go between 10-15 mph, the speed someone runs

    2. They weight between 25-35 lbs, so aggregate weight of a bicyclist and 160 lb person is 185-195 lbs.

    3. They are vulnerable – not surrounded by tons of metal they will likely be injured in any collision.

    So – please, enlighten me – what makes a person riding a bike so different from someone walking or running, rollerblading or on a skateboard for that matter?

  15.  

    RichLL

    I manage to ignore posts that do not interest me. Why can’t you?

    The simplest way to stop me responding to you and refuting you is to not utter posts that are so easily refuted.

  16.  

    Move on map

    Real-time SFMTA/MUNI location https://moveonmap.com/sfo/lnE_1_30/

  17.  

    RichLL

    I thought you said you were before. Apologies if I misunderstood.

  18.  

    jonobate

    I’m not from England.

  19.  

    RichLL

    Nonsense. You can have all the interesting discussions you want. Contributions prevent nothing

    Your real motive hear is to silent any dissent to your world view. I don’t know about England but here our very first amendment to the constitution was to relish free speech because it makes us all stronger, and is nothing to fear.

  20.  

    jonobate

    There are about 50 posts by yourself on this thread, all restating the same tired point. With so much noise, how can anyone else contribute to the discussion? It’s like trying to talk while an air-raid siren is going off.

  21.  

    RichLL

    Sure, there are really three issue here:

    1) Is it legal? Most road users and pedestrian ignore that when it suits them

    2) Is it safe. That trumps everything else but does not confer general immunity

    3) Is it considerate. And biking on a sidewalk is not – nor is parking in a bike lane.

  22.  

    roymeo

    I’ve only seen you use it.

    Of course “should I choose to ride in the bike lane or should I choose to ride on the Embarcadero Promenade” is one of those places where is is perfectly legal and reasonable to make a choice of safety.

  23.  

    jonobate

    I don’t. The reason you should be banned is because you are preventing far more interesting discussions from taking place by contradicting everything anyone says. I want to see more expression of different opinions, but you’re creating an environment where that cannot happen.

  24.  

    RichLL

    No problem with that. But it grates when people sometimes hide behind the technicalities of the law and then at other times demand immunity from it because it suits them

  25.  

    RichLL

    LOL

  26.  

    roymeo

    Just making sure that you’re consistent. Everyone just does what feels safer.

    Let’s just make sure you’re not trying to hide behind the letter of the law, either.

  27.  

    roymeo

    Middle Aged Man In Lycra.

  28.  

    RichLL

    On the contrary. You are absolutely free to contribute whatever you wish. Nobody can stop you and that is how it should be.

    Those who are confident in their truth never fear criticism

  29.  

    jonobate

    Banning you is not censorship. You are free to go and stand on a street corner and shout your opinions as loud as you can, but Streetsblog has no legal or moral obligation to act as a platform for your opinions.

  30.  

    RichLL

    I am not sure whether the city really has decided that such sharing of a sidewalk is safe or not. But surely what matters more than what some bureaucrat thinks might be safe is the expectation f those walkers who stroll there.

    The city also determined that it is safe for every cyclist to stop at every stop sign

  31.  

    RichLL

    Why do you fear different views?

  32.  

    gneiss

    Okay – then let me rephrase – the city has determined that it is safe for bicycle riders and pedestrians to share the Embarcadero multi-use path. Therefore, they have made it legal for bicycle riders to be in the same place as people walking in this location. It is no different then setting a speed limit of 55 mph on a particular roadway because engineers have determined that it is safe for people in cars to travel at that speed.

  33.  

    RichLL

    If you post cryptically then people will tend to misunderstand you. But I’m glad we now agree

    Werent you banned from SFist?

  34.  

    RichLL

    Again, it only matters whether pedestrians feel safe.

    Cyclists use that argument al the time

  35.  

    murphstahoe

    “Oh boy – I will type “Bikes are only allowed on the north path” so maybe murphstahoe will respond “That’s exactly what I just pointed out to you!”

    The worst part is you will get banhammered and you’ll just get another ID on another IP – in fact you’re on your what – 5th or 6th alias?

  36.  

    RichLL

    If you want me to post less then stop responding endlessly with weak arguments that cry out to be refuted.

  37.  

    RichLL

    Then you should do what is safe. Just dont at the same time try and hide behind the letter of the law

  38.  

    murphstahoe

    Oh please. You are not pointing out views – you are trying to see how many responses you can get.

  39.  

    RichLL

    Legal and safe arent necessarily the same thing

  40.  

    RichLL

    Bikes are only allowed on the north path

  41.  

    RichLL

    Easy for you to say, but the only cyclists I ever see fully obeying the law are ones with kids on board

  42.  

    RichLL

    First they came for the cyclists. And I said nothing because I did not ride a bike.

    Censorship is the first resort of the intolerant, and the last resort of those who cannot win a debate any other way.

    If there are views you disagree with, then refute them. But intolerance and censorship is bot the way to build liveable streets.

  43.  

    roymeo

    Stanley’s pointed out many times how easy it is to overlook signs. You’ve apparently overlooked the “bikes belong here” signs.

  44.  

    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.

  45.  

    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.

  46.  

    roymeo

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

  47.  

    gneiss

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

  48.  

    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.

  49.  

    jonobate

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

  50.  

    RichLL

    MAMIL?