Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    gneiss

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

  2.  

    jonobate

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

  3.  

    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.

  4.  

    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

  5.  

    RichLL

    So you agree that you can ride around the crosswalk?

    QED.

  6.  

    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.”

  7.  

    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

  8.  

    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.

  9.  

    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.

  10.  

    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.

  11.  

    RichLL

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

  12.  

    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.

  13.  

    RichLL

    Offensive how? Because I don’t agree with you?

    My whole point is your intolerance!

  14.  

    jonobate

    The signs on Embarcadero say “Shared Path – Faster Cyclists Use Roadway Bike Lane”. So faster cyclists – the ones who might “terrorize” pedestrians, to use your hyperbole – should be on the road. Slower cyclists, such as families with children, are free to use the safer path shared with pedestrians.

    I would rather there was a protected bike lane, separate from both the road and the sidewalk, that all cyclists could use. But until that happens, this is a perfectly good compromise.

  15.  

    gneiss

    No where did I say that I could ride “with impunity” on the sidewalks. I specified the Embarcadero sidewalk where it is legal to do so. The crosswalks are not explicitly called out in sec 1007 of SF vehicle code, which means that CVC 21650(g) applies. Read the statute, please.

  16.  

    gneiss

    Because that happens to be part of the multi-use path in the panhandle.

  17.  

    gneiss

    Now you are getting offensive. Downvoting.

  18.  

    gneiss

    They are vehicles, but are given specific rights to spaces shared by pedestrians and others as designated in CVC 21650(g). The only reason why bicycle riders are restricted to sidewalks in San Francisco, is that there is an explicit local law that does so. However, this law does not apply to crosswalks, nor to shared space such as the Embarcadero sidewalk and others. You are being unreasonably obtuse if you can’t understand that bicycles are fundamentally different from motor vehicles in both the CVC and in their physical nature.

  19.  

    RichLL

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

    What you are really saying is that you’d rather terrorize pedestrians than be terrorized by cars. Well fine, but don’t expect to get away with that without some pushback from pedestrians.

    Same thing with the Panhandle where we see that once cyclists are freed from car drivers, they behave exactly like drivers

    Everything about liveable streets starts with those who walk. Don’t forget that. And don;t become the enemy.

  20.  

    Prinzrob

    Once we have a physically protected bikeway along Embarcadero you might have a point. Until then I completely understand why some people, especially parents with kids or tourists who have never biked in urban traffic before, might prefer to avoid riding in the street. I consider myself a fairly confident bike rider, and do bike in the street there, but still find it frequently terrifying.

  21.  

    RichLL

    Sorry but you cannot chirp away about how you can ride with impunity on sidewalks and crosswalks without getting called out on your arrogance.

    You know, cycling is in general a cuddly, fuzzy and wonderful thing that everyone can get behind. But you make it a nasty entitled thing that nobody wants to support.

    Think about that and lose the attitude.

  22.  

    RichLL

    Bikes are not motorized but they are vehicles, and so belong on the roads.

    You cannot have it both ways. Make your mind up.

    I only respond in a hostile manner to a cyclist if that cyclist first acts in a hostile manner to me, i.e, self defence. I’ve only needed to do that once but totally got away with it. No more details than that.

  23.  

    RichLL

    The mixed-use path in the Panhandle is a very different situation.

    I see bikes there all the time. They should give way. sometimes they even do. Other times I have to make them.

    The Embarcadero is different because there is a regular road adjacent. 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.

  24.  

    RichLL

    Why would you need to cross Masonic only at the crosswalk?

  25.  

    RichLL

    You’re still missing the point. Regardless of the law (and God knows, cyclist feels little need to follow it when it doesn’t suit them) it is clear that those who walk in that area neither expect nor desire to see cyclists there.

    So why would you seek to ignore that? Especially when you demand our sympathy when vehicles do that to your bike lanes?

    What makes you so precious that you deserve the best of both worlds? To be a pedestrian when it suits you and to be a vehicle when it suits you?

  26.  

    RichLL

    What the law does and does not say is only half the story. What Roberts sees is what I see and, I suspect, most pedestrians see – that bikes should be on roads and not on the safe spaces that walkers cherish.

    The Embarcadero is very wide. Why would you as a cyclist need even more space than that, unless you are disembarking?

  27.  

    RichLL

    Bikes are vehicles and they are traffic. There are in fact still relatively few streets in SF that designate separate space for cars and bikes. But every single street designates between walkers and traffic.

    Can you see why?

  28.  

    murphstahoe

    If so?

    It is very well known that the Emnarcadero is a mixed use path. It has been discussed on numerous threads on this blog that you clearly follow very closely.

    How is it that you are so willing to pontificate on conditions as though you have detailed knowledge when you clearly have very little knowledge, and act surprised when you are corrected?

    Answer: you do know that it is a mixed use path, but make statements predicated on the presumption that it is not, in order to garner a response correcting you.

    Even p_chazzz might agree that is trolling, pure and simple

  29.  

    gneiss

    Snort. Nothing I’ve said is self righteous or aggressive. Nor are you correct here given that there are places where both bicyclist and pedestrians are permitted to exist. Nor did I say that pedestrians shouldn’t be given “priority”. Please – if you can’t get your facts straight, find some other place to troll.

  30.  

    gneiss

    Bicycles are not motor vehicles. There are numerous places in the city where they are allowed to share the same right of way as pedestrians. The Embarcadero sidewalk happens to be one of them. They are not restricted from crosswalks. If you responded in a “hostile manner” to a person on a bike in one of those places, you could be arrested for assault.

  31.  

    murphstahoe

    So by your logic, cyclists on the panhandle multi use path must dismount to cross Masonic in the crosswalk?

  32.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    You wouldn’t expect to see a bicyclists anywhere near you because you post these comments from an alternate universe.

  33.  

    Prinzrob

    I see a difference in concerning oneself with something that is illegal (driving or parking in bike lanes) as opposed to something which is not (biking on the Embarcadero path or in crosswalks), especially when it comes to commenting on a Stanley “Letter of the Law” Roberts piece.

    Gneiss never said it is okay for bicyclists to ride on sidewalks. He (and I) only referred to the Embarcadero bike/ped pathway.

  34.  

    gneiss

    What I’m pointing out is that Stanley Roberts gets the law wrong, which leads to needless harassment of people who ride bikes and erroneous interpretations (and you are so aptly pointing out) of the places where people riding bikes are allowed to go.

    I am not saying that bicycles “may treat it as their entitled domain” or any other nonsense you would like to make up. Nor am I saying that people on bikes aren’t required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. However, yielding does not require a person to dismount. You are simply required to give them priority. Drivers of vehicles are similarly required to yield to pedestrians in mid-block crosswalks or unmarked crosswalks.

  35.  

    RichLL

    If so, then you are correct that the signage there sucks. I certainly would not expect to see a cyclist anywhere near me there and would no doubt respond in a hostile manner if I felt my safety was thereby threatened by vehicular traffic on a walkway.

    There are several traffic lanes there. Traffic should stick to them.

  36.  

    RichLL

    Well, er, drivers have to drive on crosswalks to cross them. As do cyclists. But no reasonable person interprets that as gneiss does – that bikes and cars can just regard crosswalks and sidewalks as part of their entitled domain.

    The irony is that the article that gneiss is referring to here focuses on abuse of bike lanes. And yet somehow he only sees the complaints that cyclists sometimes also abuse areas designated for the safety of others

  37.  

    Prinzrob

    The east side of Embarcadero is literally a bike/ped path, as designated by the city. If the city doesn’t want bicyclists to ride there then they can revoke that designation, but as of yet they have not done so. However, I admit that there should be much better signage and markings to indicate its usage, so that people can better expect mixed traffic along that corridor.

  38.  

    Prinzrob

    Heck, there isn’t even a law that restricts people from DRIVING in crosswalks, let along biking in them. If such a law existed then nobody would ever be able to make turns, as this requires always driving or biking over a crosswalk. Pedestrians do have the right of way in crosswalks, so drivers and bicyclists must yield, but that’s about it.

  39.  

    RichLL

    I’m not sure it is productive to endlessly parse statutory phrasing. It makes a lot more sense to adopt a common sense approach to who can go where.

    Bikes have priority in bike lanes. They have a right to use other parts of the road. They have no real valid claim to treat areas with pedestrian priority as their own.

    You cannot have it both way i.e. seek to banish cars from bike lanes while treating walkways with total entitled disdain.

    And regardless of any interpretation of the phrasing of the law, why would you be so eager to encroach on the space reserved for walkers? How does that aid the “liveability” of our streets? And can you not see how you harm your cause with such self-righteous aggressive posturing?

  40.  

    gneiss

    RichLL, it would have been easy for the city to include “crosswalks” in section 1007 if they considering it a danger to pedestrians. However, they did not. Therefore CVC 21650(g) applies.

    As to the question about “separating pedestrian and bicycle traffic” there are numerous places in the city where bike lane end on crosswalks or where multi-use paths use crosswalks. Given the fact that the Embarcadero sidewalk is legal for cyclist to ride on and that there is a designated bike lane on the other side of this road, to say that you must dismount and walk from the designated path to the bike lane is patently ridiculous.

  41.  

    RichLL

    A cyclist can certainly dismount and walk his or her bike along the sidewalk. But I don’t think that any reasonable person thinks it is OK for cyclists to treat the sidewalk as an extension of a designated bike path, whether at the Embarcadero or anywhere else.

    Similarly, while it is possible that the vehicle code was not precisely written to make it explicit that cycling is not allowed on a crosswalk, it is fairly obvious that the intent of the law is no more to allow cycling on a crosswalk than it is to allow cycling on a sidewalk. The clue is in the “walk” part if it is not obvious..

    Do you really and seriously have a problem with understanding the reasonable limits of where a road vehicle can go? And that the spirit of the law is to keep vehicles and pedestrians separate?

  42.  

    Melanie Curry

    Link to map above fixed. “Communities of Concern” include large percentages of low-income, disabled, senior, single-parent, rent-burdened, limited-English-proficient, zero-vehicle, and minority residents.
    Not a perfect measure, but a pretty solid attempt to identify those communities whose residents shoulder a higher burden of health issues and lack of access than other communities, so as to make sure they are not left behind when we make investments and improvements.

  43.  

    gneiss

    In the People Behaving Badly segment, Stanley Roberts still couldn’t resist taking pot shots at people riding bikes even though both of the behaviors he observed were legal on the Embarcadero.

    1. The cyclists are legally allowed to be on the sidewalk as the Embarcadero is a designated bike path, so if they jump off the road and onto the pavement to avoid a red light at the T-intersection, that’s legal.

    2. There is no law that restricts cyclists in the city from riding in crosswalks. The sidewalk riding restrictions do not apply on crosswalks.

  44.  

    Prinzrob

    AC Transit has the Easy Pass program for schools and companies, but nothing for individuals. As such if someone maxes out the $5 “day pass” rate each work day for a full month it will cost them around $100, or upwards of $1000 per year.

  45.  

    murphstahoe

    The only community of concern I see is the 4 foot circle around you – you have very deep concerns for quite a few topics

  46.  

    J

    I see. Thanks for the update. I’ll withhold judgement until I see the plans for the full expansion. I can say that it will need to be much bigger and denser than this to be successful, but hopefully that will be achieved through the larger rollout.

  47.  

    jd_x

    Anybody know what happened on Townsend just south of 5th St at around 6 pm Tuesday evening? Looked like a bicyclist hit by a motorist based on what I could glean from riding by. This street is such a cluster and yet all I ever see the cops doing is giving bicyclists tickets for rolling the stop sign at 5th while motorists do ridiculously dangerous things with impunity, from double-parking in the bike lane/bus stops/red zones to illegal U-turns to driving while talking on their cellphones.

  48.  

    RichLL

    Your link doesn’t work but that’s not even the point here. You responded to a comment here that the bike share locations appear to be in neighborhoods that are mostly white.

    And that may be true. Presumably the backers of this program have done some research about the demographics and economics of those who use bike share and those who do not, and designed the system accordingly. And any casual observer could tell you that most cyclists are white.

    There’s probably not a Brooks Bros or an Abercromblie and Fitch in West Oakland, nor many Afro hair stylists in Pacific Heights either.

    Everything doesn’t have to be everywhere, you know? And, again, you can’t get around Prop 209’s prohibition of race quotas by simply using thinly-veiled surrogates and euphemisms for race.

  49.  

    murphstahoe

    $60 per year. How much is an AC Transit pass per month?

  50.  

    Mike Jones

    Quite! There aren’t in this phase.