Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Fuck the Police.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Exactly. Metered parking doesn’t have to be aesthetically-displeasing in the least. Actually, since cars are pretty ugly, a car-free GG Park would be the most aesthetic option, but unlikely to be achieved in 2016.



    Of course that’s your view. Your view is consistently that anyone on a bike is always wrong. Obvious troll is obvious.


    SF Guest

    The Presidio was my favorite place to ride a bike until a driver opened her parked car door in front of me.



    How’d your D11 write-in campaign go this year?



    Thank you, Roger, for attending the forum and reporting on it. Your inclusion of facts and quotes is greatly appreciated. Let’s hope there are more forums focused on the BART director races.



    Hello Jame and RichLL,

    Here are the facts from the SF Elections site. In 2014 when I ran for District 8 Supervisor, I came in second. I received 2,004 votes which came to 6.8%.

    Here’s the link for verification:



    Metered parking ≠ parking meters. You haven’t spent much time in the Presidio, have you?



    So basically, you want the driver testimony to be taken at face value.

    Nothing could be more obviously self-serving and dishonest.



    Both sides were presented. SFSB presented one side, as it always does, and I provided balance, context and a broader perspective.

    Again, crossing a broken center line to pass is perfectly legal and, apparently, there was no impact.

    So did the cyclist fall or was she pushed? Absent impact, this potential juror’s view is that perhaps she was a very nervous cyclist, pre-disposed to over-reaction, and that this tragedy resulted from an abnormal reaction to a fairly normal pass manoeuvre.

    That said, I’d be interested in evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?



    Says Jym, the hall-monitor bicyclist shill. That’s what’s blithering obvious.



    Or the argument could be “mounted” that Rudin made a bad pass, did not allow for on coming traffic, crossed the broken yellow line in a dangerous and aggressive fashion breaking the law, that the driver realizing his / her errors then over-reacted and in doing so caused the bicycle rider to fall.

    You really need to present both sides of a fantasy argument if you want people to consider any of your fantasies.


    SF Guest

    While installing parking meters wouldn’t impact my wallet regardless of the rate in GGP the idea of having parking meters lined up in a row is simply repulsive from an aesthetics POV.


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – Don’t need a lecture in the blitheringly obvious, thanks. Your pal has contributed nothing of any substance whatsoever to these discussions.



    Karen, the vehicular routes through GGP exist for the purpose of allowing through traffic. This is fair since GGP is so large that banning through-traffic would cause considerable detours and move congestion to residential areas.

    State Highway One and JFK Drive, in particular, are crucial vehicular conduits and I doubt that the city even has full jurisdiction over the kind of change you propose.

    I’d also point out that many safety advocates do not like one-way roads as they believe that they encourage speeding. I don’t buy that argument myself but you should be aware that you may not even have support for that from those whom you otherwise believe to be your natural allies.



    Jame, it is only Petrelis who wants to tax tech companies in this way. and he is the perennial fringe/joke candidate who usually gets less votes than “spoilt ballots” and write-in’s.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    The SFMTA will hold a hearing on adding 10 street humps in GG Park this Friday at 10 am. If you can’t attend, you can send a comment to In my email, I also put in a pitch to make GG Park a one-way loop to discourage drivers who use the park as a cut through (would cut traffic in the park by 75%), and low-fee metered parking on all GG Park streets east of Crossover drive.



    What is this strange proposal that tech companies should pay a special tax for being near BART? Not all employers near BART, just tech companies. We need to stop pretending tech companies are the scapegoat of decades of bad planning and lack of decision making by public leaders to support growth.



    That is as may be, but when people of a similar mind set discuss matters it tends to become something of a closed loop. It’s good to have someone to challenge one’s cherished opinions.



    The piece on Suyama suggests there was no impact but rather Suyama “lost control” as Rudin passed.

    “Rudin began to pass the truck over broken yellow lines as Suyama and Dean approached. The CHP is investigating how or if Rudin’s Chevrolet hit Suyama’s bicycle, but Suyama lost control as the truck passed and she fell onto the roadway.”

    Since it’s legal to cross broken yellow lines to pass then, if there was also no impact, it’s confusing how this accident happened. Nor clear what law Rudin broke.

    The argument could be mounted that Suyama was frightened and over-reacted, thereby falling off her bike. But can a driver be blamed for that if he did nothing else wrong?


    Jym Dyer

    @Raven Luna Tikke – I were actually been to the intersection, as you put it. I was referring to the eyewitness statement about the SUV’s estimated speed, which itself mentions the construction there. It’s up there in the article, in case you missed it.


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – There is nothing polite about endless off-topic responses to anything and everything, no matter how “logical” the irrelevancy is. Your sneers about a “mutual admiration society” miss the point, some of us do have a basis for understanding issues of transportation and land use, and that’s what we wish to discuss. Intelligently.



    A fresh citation for you will be available Nov 8th. Hang tight.



    Are you in denial, or simply being contrary?


    Jeffrey Baker

    880 is also over capacity. Is Caltrans the corpse of what it used to be?



    Citation for BART being “out of favor by the majority of users and non-users” please? Keyboard warriors don’t count.


    Patrick Connors

    At the very least everyone wants to do “it” with you now, so I hope that feels good!!



    Usage and being in favor are not the same thing.



    chazz, if I didn’t exist, Murph would have to invent me.



    Justin, I was referring to this section of the article:

    “As he puts it, collisions usually are caused by two people fouling up.

    “A cyclist might have made an illegal turn against a red, but a driver might also have failed to keep a proper look out, or made an illegal entrance–usually two things go wrong. We think Justin didn’t actually run the red. We seem to have found a witness who thinks the driver ran a red. So the officer concluded that Justin made an illegal turn across the double yellow line?”

    I read that as saying that there is evidence that both parties were at fault.


    Raven Luna Tikke

    Anyone going 45 over that intersection would lose a tire. You did that bit I said about the lack of uniform surface, yes? When I said that, I meant that there are gouges in the road. There were some just beyond the intersection on Brannan, across the whole street, in line with the B of A that were at least 4″ deep. But then if you were actually been to the intersection, you’d know that.



    The problem is that he responds to EVERY single comment, on and on and on and on.

    “The sky is blue”

    “Actually the sky is more of a Cyan in color”

    “What’s the difference?”

    “Ah yes, the streetsblog cabal with it’s anti-cyan brigade, an echo chamber of pro-blue sentiment”

    “You’re crazy, man”

    “So, you have no rebuttal, just an ad hominem!”



    BART is over capacity, and BART is out of favor by the majority of users and non users. It’s the corpse of what it used to be. But hey, the jobs pay well and I hear the retirement plan is fabulous.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Is BART out of favor? My understanding is that average daily ridership is up almost 50% vs 2010.



    What has RichLL ever done that is ban worthy? He is polite and always presents logical arguments. The only problem is that they run contrary to the views of the mutual admiration society that predominates here.


    Jym Dyer

    @Raven Luna Tikke – All the more reason not to be going at least 45mph, then.


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – @RoyTT got himself banned from a lot of places, @RichLL will follow if we ever get more than a skeleton crew moderating this site.



    So this the group that is going to bring a dysfunctional BART system back into favor?



    Justin, seriously, you’ve got enough legit battles ahead. Don’t waste your time or energy fighting gaslighting trolls. Good luck!



    RichLL…can’t live with him, can’t live without him!



    I’ll gladly allow anyone to plagiarize the above rough design. :-) One key shortcut would be to find a preexisting low power firmware controllable chip that already implements the basic video loop functionality (a dashcam!) and enhance that existing design with the motion sensor capabilities.



    Yeah, sad that bicyclists have to be so defensive. But this issue is not unique to bicyclists. In some other countries (Russia and Taiwan for example) dashboard cameras are commonplace. I asked a colleague why and he said that no-one can rely on the police to collect evidence. So the next best thing is to buy a $30 dashcam.

    I guess the difference in the USA is that the police generally do a much more thorough crash investigation. But the effort is linked to the perceived damage to motorists and some police officers aren’t very interested in protecting the interest of bicyclists.

    I’m sure a large percentage of police do investigate bike involved wrecks thoroughly but there does seem to be somewhat of a windshield bias.



    I don’t disagree with wanting both, but in the situation we’re discussing, it’s clear that the driver was at fault for creating the situation in the fist place, do you not agree?



    The article indicates that the police drew conclusions based only on what three witnesses said, but nowhere does it state that all three told the same story, because they didn’t. The article also does not say I made an illegal turn against a red light. It says what’s most likely is that the car ran a red light, not me.



    The advanced police driving course, which I have taken, teaches defensive driving, meaning taking a conservative approach and avoiding getting into such situations in the first place.

    That said, we all end up in higher risk situations from time to time, and being able to handle them is a valuable skill. If a driver cannot see you at night, then his ability to take avoiding action can save your life.

    Anticipation is a key skill, but so is damage limitation. You need both to minimize accidents.



    The article indicates that the citation is based on what the only three witnesses said. We cannot know if they were mistaken or not but, if you don’t have three other witnesses saying something different, then there is a credibility gap here.

    I think you should fight the citation anyway, and I suspect that it will be dismissed given that you are a sympathetic defendant. Even if you did make an illegal turn against a stop light, as the article says, then you have probably suffered enough, at least in the mind of this potential juror.

    Unfortunately there is a widespread perception that cyclists consider themselves above the law, and you may be suffering unduly as a result of that.



    But the driver put themselves in a “difficult situation” by that very same person using poor judgment. If the judgment was sound, they wouldn’t have had to use skills to get out of a difficult situation.



    That is not what the article says, nor does the police report. All accounts offering conflicting stories.



    If the three witnesses were telling the same story, which is what the article says is the case, then that testimony is prima facie credible even if, at trial, it turns out to be not provable.



    Murphy, you ignore me and yet talk about me all the time. Interesting.