Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    gneiss

    Nope. Check again:

    Motorized Bicycles: Prohibited Operation

    21207.5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation.

  2.  

    murphstahoe

    I’ll bet you $50 that you’re lying.

  3.  

    Izsak

    Conversation with you ends here, for me.

  4.  

    HuckieCA

    Please reference the state law or vehicle code that you think is being violated. As I posed above, Vehicle Code 21207.5 specifically gives local authorities the ability to permit vehicular operation in bike lanes.

  5.  

    gneiss

    That section only applies to Motorized Bicycles. Here is the full text:

    Motorized Bicycles: Prohibited Operation

    21207.5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation.

    Please get your facts correct.

  6.  

    murphstahoe

    But they do, and they have to, because they aren’t staffed to deal with everything.

    Either you disagree that they are understaffed (in which case you are an idiot) or you understand that but post this blather anyway (in which case you are a troll).

    Which is it?

  7.  

    Izsak

    I’m just trying to save people some time and energy ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8.  

    murphstahoe

    I’m saying your alternative is counter to state law. Lee may or may not veto the proposed ordinance, but the board and Lee would be violating state law to go with your alternative.

  9.  

    HuckieCA

    Um, you might want to get your facts straight. California Vehicle Code 21207.5 specifically gives local authorities the ability to permit vehicular operation in bike lanes, and that is exactly what SFMTA did in 2011. There’s actually a Streetsblog article from 2011 about this, so no, the bumper sticker is not instructing Taxi drivers to do something illegal.

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-to-block-bike-lanes/

  10.  

    Izsak

    They shouldn’t pick and choose to ignore any, including this one. I’m not arguing for them to pick and choose – your argument would only work if I was. They should enforce all law, and we should double our police force if they are unable to.

  11.  

    gneiss

    No, but it’s inaccurate for you to say that it failed, because it hasn’t yet.

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    “The ordinance failed, btw.”

  13.  

    Izsak

    Oh ok, I see your angle.

  14.  

    gneiss

    It hasn’t reached the mayors desk yet, so no – it isn’t getting vetoed yet.

  15.  

    Izsak

    He has said multiple times he is going to veto it. Do you have evidence that he has changed or will change his mind?

  16.  

    Dave Moore

    I’m suggesting an alternative as I don’t believe the ordinance as proposed with gather enough votes to override Mayor Lee’s expected veto.

  17.  

    Izsak

    Right, but it’s getting vetoed.

  18.  

    murphstahoe

    The Bike Yield ordinance was heard by the full San Francisco Board of
    Supervisors yesterday. It passed, with six โ€œayesโ€ and five against

  19.  

    Izsak

    Ah, ok (I didn’t see the image initially for some reason). I don’t really know anything about that – if what they are promoting is illegal than it shouldn’t be.

  20.  

    gneiss

    It didn’t fail btw – it passed the first procedural vote. There is a second vote in January and then it goes to the mayors desk. After that, the Supervisors can then vote to overturn the veto.

  21.  

    Izsak

    The ordinance failed, btw. People are talking about it as if it is still in play.

  22.  

    gneiss

    These are stickers that taxis in the city are allowed to put on their vehicles that directly contradict state law. They only started getting issued by SFMTA after numerous drivers complained about getting tickets for blocking bike lanes in the city.

  23.  

    gneiss

    Notice that there have been numerous citizen complaints about people double parking and blocking traffic lanes on Sundays around churches. And notice that there has been zero enforcement of these laws. The police and SFMTA most certainly can pick and choose which laws they enforce and which complaints they listen too.

  24.  

    murphstahoe

    The police can’t just ignore citizens’ complaints about this matter.

    Sure they can. The SFPD ignores citizen complaints daily. They pick and choose which ones to ignore.

  25.  

    murphstahoe

    “Letting people know that this area has new rules”

    There is NO NEW RULE

  26.  

    murphstahoe

    Bikes still have to *STOP*. If the SFPD writes someone a ticket for failure to stop, they cannot go to court and cite this ordinance as a defense.

    This ordinance – if followed by the SFPD – just means it’s less likely that they will get a ticket as long as they are slowing and yielding.

  27.  

    murphstahoe

    Would it be possible to create new signage for specific intersections that indicates that bikes yield but cars stop?

    That’s not the law being proposed. Cyclists are required to stop. The ordinance is an instruction to the SFPD to mostly not bother with ticketing cyclists who don’t stop if they are slowing and yielding. Putting in signage counter to the CVC is counter to the concept of this ordinance. I’m starting to think that our population just isn’t smart enough to figure that out.

  28.  

    Mountain Viewer

    These 4-way stops seem very anachronic in an urban environment (can’t remember seeing a single one in NYC). While at it, maybe also ban right on reds (as in NYC)?

  29.  

    farazs

    > if they didn’t spend so much time ticketing cyclists who yield
    If you look at the actual stats of tickets handed out to cyclists, it isn’t really that much – and some of those would surely be justified. Sure, it is more than the proportional mode share of cyclists and unreasonable considering the actual objective danger posed by cyclists. That time could definitely be better spent, but to claim that police spend a significant amount of time on harmless cyclists is unfair and incorrect.

  30.  

    caryl

    “…but wish they could do more.”

    Yay, something we agree on! :-)

  31.  

    farazs

    And yet, we should expect that from our police force, simply because one could stop and still fail to yield. IMO, 20 tickets handed out to people for not ‘stopping’ at stop signs are less useful than 5 given out for not yielding to pedestrians at signalized intersections and uncontrolled cross-walks.

    Given how common not yielding is, it would seem that police is quite successful at ignoring road fatalities and injuries due to it. If they can ignore complaints about actual unsafe behaviour with such impunity, why couldn’t they do the same for complaints of potentially unsafe behaviour?

  32.  

    Izsak

    They are tasked with focusing on them, but focusing doesn’t mean ignoring all other types of violations . I disagree that they don’t enforce vs. cars, but wish they could do more.

  33.  

    caryl

    SFPD seems to have no problem ignoring complaints about motorists failing to yield, blocking crosswalks, speeding, etc, and those things happen all day at many of the most dangerous intersections around the city. I’ve never seen a sting at Fell/Masonic despite many accidents and complaints, but I regularly see cops hanging out on the Wiggle – why is that? I just want the SFPD to focus on the things that actually kill and injure people – as far as I know, cyclists who yield have never killed anyone.

  34.  

    Dave Moore

    I like that. It’s what I hoped you could get from watching how people behave. Do you see pedestrians cowering more than before? Or are bikes routinely allowing them to cross because they’ve embraced the new approach.

  35.  

    farazs

    Firstly, its not my claim! I am not for changing existing laws. I believe that re-prioritizing law enforcement is the right approach.

    IMO, number of pedestrian injuries is not the right metric here. I’d try to measure pedestrian confidence: namely how safe they feel performing a perfectly legal street crossing. Upside is, because their RoW is so routinely violated, they have so little confidence to begin with, I don’t think they could possibly feel less safe because of a bike-yield law.

  36.  

    Izsak

    It would take more time to sit around waiting for the one who doesn’t stop at all then to just ticket a bunch who are “Yielding” and send a message – if time wasted is your main concern. The police can’t just ignore citizens’ complaints about this matter.

  37.  

    Izsak

    I’m not sure what you are referring to, but if they are then that isn’t right either.

  38.  

    PaleoBruce

    > it would make no sense to make signs instructing cyclists to break state law.

    Yet, the City makes bumper stickers instructing Taxi drivers to break state law.

  39.  

    Dave Moore

    I understand the theory. But I would rather not test that theory city-wide with only extremely unreliable and course grained measurements (number of pedestrian / cyclist injuries). If it works here, with good data it gives validity to your claim.

  40.  

    caryl

    I fully support a crackdown on cyclists who don’t yield, and the SFPD would have more time to focus on that if they didn’t spend so much time ticketing cyclists who yield, but don’t come to a full and complete stop. The latter doesn’t endanger anyone. If it does, you’re doing it wrong and you should be ticketed.

  41.  

    Izsak

    :( Guess he couldn’t be bought. Shame on him!

  42.  

    Izsak

    Well, considering what most cyclists think ‘Stop’ means, I don’t think people are too off-target assuming that their interpretation of ‘Yield’ will be just as liberal.

  43.  

    farazs

    You’re missing the point. A basic premise, according to its proponents, that makes the yield law attractive, is that it should require absolutely no change in behaviour from other road users. Saying that others (specifically pedestrians) may need to be more cautious directly undermines this premise and lends credence to the counter argument that it is unsafe.

  44.  

    caryl

    I would love that, but sadly, Americans seem to have lost all sense of what it means to yield, the result being a proliferation of unnecessary stop signs and traffic signals. The reactions to the Bike Yield Ordinance make this abundantly clear, as opponents seem convinced that it will authorize cyclists to blow though stop signs, mowing down pedestrians and cutting off motorists and other cyclists left and right. Is that really what everyone thinks ‘yield’ means?

  45.  

    lunartree

    They knowingly voted in a conservative. What did people expect?

  46.  

    SFnative74

    Many countries wouldn’t have any stop signs OR yield signs. It would just be understood that you have to approach at a safe speed and be ready to yield appropriately. But since we’re such moronic and careless drivers and bike riders, we need to have not only 2 stop signs, but 4 at nearly every intersection around the city that doesn’t have a traffic signal.

  47.  

    Dave Moore

    I agree, if you assume instantaneous perfect compliance. But I think it’s likely that it’ll take some participants time to learn what exactly these new rules mean. Letting people know that this area has new rules might make everyone more cautious. Perhaps instead of doing something at each intersection for cross traffic there could be something more general posted throughout the area. Maybe that would also give you cover to run 24/7 surveillance of the intersections, not for enforcement but for observation. Then you could get some real data on how the various actors behave and decide if changes need to be made.

  48.  

    Akit

    If that was done, those signs would also apply to drivers too. Not sure what safety risks might be involved with doing such a switch from making a 4-way stop to a 2-way stop w/yield.

  49.  

    the_greasybear

    Why not just replace stop signs on the Wiggle bike route with official yield signs?

  50.  

    farazs

    Except, bikes still *have to* yield when there is a competing pedestrian or car with right-of-way. If they have right-of-way in the situation, they shouldn’t have to care about a bicyclist who doesn’t. If they don’t have right-of-way, then its their responsibility to yield irrespective of whether the bicyclist stops. What exactly would the new sign achieve??