Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Brian Smith

    KTVU plays to a very car-dependent Contra Costa County. Sharing is communism. Especially sharing “my” public parking space.




    If nobody is going to be interested in going things for cyclists until they obey traffic laws, but we ARE getting a lot of new bike lanes/etc….

    Does not compute.



    “That is why many people, given the chance, reflexively vote against transit – because they perceive it not as being a new alternative, an option, but something people want to force down their throats in “get you out of your car” style. And nobody wants to be treated that way (and many vote accordingly).”

    Flawed logic. Reverse what you said: imagine you are somebody who doesn’t drive (or not much) and gets car-centricness shoved down their throat. This is of course exactly the status quo, and so what you are saying is that it’s okay for those who don’t drive to get driving shoved down their throat but it’s not okay for those who do drive to get anything else shoved down their throat. Do you see the crazy bias in this situation? There is no equality in transit right now: cars utterly dominate our cities at the expense of all other forms of transit. This would be problematic even if all forms of transit were more or less different but equal, but that is not the case since cars disproportionately injure other transit users and are one of the largest causes of GHG emissions, not to mention they take up more physical space than all other forms of transit. This situation is highly asymmetric and hence biased.

    Therefore, the only way to move forward is to reclaim some “space” (literal and figurative) from cars and return it to other forms of transit. And in that case, motorists feel their (negatively externalized) way of life is threatened? Too bad: welcome to how everybody who doesn’t drive feels all the time. Time for equality. That’s like saying slave holders are going to be pissed when the job market gets flooded if they free all slaves. Yeah, it sucks when you’ve lived off of negative externalities imposed on others and then people want to correct that.

    By the way, I do have a problem with public transit going fast as well. However, there is one huge advantage of public transit: since it carries many more passengers, there are much less “operators” and hence much less chances for things to go wrong. Further, they can be only on a small percentage of roads and leave all others free whereas cars are one *every* single road. For those roads were transit exists, if you give it priority and consolidate stops, it can zip you across a city like SF in no time even at slow speeds of 20-30 mph. But I agree, if you want public transit to go any faster, it needs to be grade-separated, which means underground (above ground is unacceptable … utterly decimates quality of life). If we stopped blowing many on accommodating so much auto traffic, we could focus resources on safe and effective public transit.



    The problem is that your plan would leave us with just two option to avoid a complete slowdown of everyone’s mobility, neither of them particularly attractive:

    - plenty of urban highway construction, so that cars can move around without interacting with other objects except other cars (and trucks etc)

    - plenty of grade-separated transit (elevated or underground or with completely isolated ground level-ROWs), so that trains, monorails etc. can travel fast without interfering with other passengers, cyclists and else.

    The first alternative is usually loathed for some of its effects, the second is extremely expensive and only a few metros in the World managed to achieve ample transit coverage with full reliance on grade-separated transit, and even so (Paris, London, Berlin, Tokyo) only for just part of their core areas.

    I’m assuming you are coherent in that you don’t want trams, streetcars or buses going over that speed. It makes no sense to have cars at 20mph but buses at 45mph…

    In any case, I sense a sort of “I hate cars” attitude by your comment. That is why many people, given the chance, reflexively vote against transit – because they perceive it not as being a new alternative, an option, but something people want to force down their throats in “get you out of your car” style. And nobody wants to be treated that way (and many vote accordingly).


    Mariana Snyder

    That crosswalk is extremely confusing and a lot of the time Ive seen pedestrians cross the street like lemmings when the motorists have the right of way. I hate the cagers too, but jailing someone for like this isn’t right.


    SF Guest

    You make a sound point, but the law doesn’t work in that vein. The DA will not indict without physical evidence.



    Everybody–surely even SFPD–knows 78-year old women don’t just ‘come out of nowhere.’


    Diane Feinstein

    Nut case screed. Vested interested, much?

    Actually Powell as pedestrians only during certain hours isn’t a bad idea as long as businesses there have access to the street for deliveries.

    Just understand nobody is going to be much interested in doing things for the cyclists until they begin obeying traffic laws. How hard is that?

    Did I mention the rude cyclists with death wishes unable to come to a stop for red lights or stop signs or give pedestrians the right of way?

    Best wishes!


    Dark Soul

    Safer Riders in muni by having disable seat program.





    SF Guest

    Is this video footage available on-line?



    The District Attorney has nothing to do with traffic citations. Traffic citations are typically not dealt with in a jury trial.

    I might or might not think that he should be tried for vehicular manslaughter, but the SFPD should be citing him for improper lane usage or failure to yield, which carries a trivial fine… and puts a point onto your drivers license.

    More important than getting a big judgement from his company would be this guy no longer driving giant commercial vehicles for a living. Nothing personal, he’s just not a very good driver – we have proof.



    Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motorists must learn to share the road. I represent a lot of Motorist at my firm and I feel that the blame is always put on them. While I think not everyone with a license should be on the road, I also think responsibility of the road is a shared effort. I can’t tell you how many times on my walk to work I am cut off in a crosswalk by a driver, or see a pedestrian illegally cross against traffic, or see Cyclists ignoring red lights. In fact just yesterday I saw a woman run into the middle of the street, forcing cars to slam on their breaks, while the light was green just to try to catch a bus that runs every 15 minutes. I think the moral of the story is common sense…you just can’t expect everyone to have it. As someone who drives/walks/bikes in the city…its natural to use extra caution. Another sad, unfortunate death in SF :(


    Jamison Wieser

    Regarding the car sharing spaces,

    Perhaps what we need here is a registry of the businesses that only want customers arriving by privately owned cars.

    If small businesses – like 25th & Clement produce featured in the new KTVU puff-piece – are going to be so hurt and potentially driven out of businesses by customers who arriving on foot, bike, bus, train or car-share, then something should really be done to make sure those types of customers aren’t bogging them down from helping car-owning customers.


    SF Guest

    DA Gascón didn’t prosecute the driver who hit and killed Amelie Le Moullac citing the evidence was not enough to convince a jury.

    “If the driver was the one at fault and there is a death, then we have a prosecutable case and we look at the evidence and whether we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,” Gascón said.

    The Le Moullac family did file a wrongful death suit against the driver and his company which probably has a good chance of winning.

    @murphstahoe: I never claimed the law is always right.


    Jamison Wieser

    @sebraleaves:disqus hasn’t answered the question,

    But speaking as someone who sometimes works in Potrero Hill, I know I’m going to benefit from the planned improvements and rerouting of the 22 and 33.



    Obviously, noise ordinances still apply. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the city to require new conversions to get their neighbors’ approval, or perhaps be required to fund some soundproofing– as you say, there’s probably some inconvenience, however minor.

    But many types of establishments hardly generate any noise at all — dental offices, lawyers’ offices, retail stores, specialty stores.



    Remember – the driver who killed Amelie Le Moullac still has a clean record. His driving privileges will never be impacted by that incident.


    SF Guest

    This is why driver’s licenses are revoked. How can you revoke someone’s license if they have a clean record?


    SF Guest

    When you press these buttons it will turn the light green for pedestrians. The time it takes for the button to turn the signal green varies — some of them turn the signal green within a few seconds while others may take a minute or longer.


    John Pettitt

    Reading all the back and forth in the comment here this seems like a good reason to get a dashcam, no arguing about who ran what light if you have it on video.


    SF Guest

    “The Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines the word “rural” as encompassing “…all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural.”

    I would be surprised if Golden Gate Park does not have pedestrian actuated signals. I have also seen these signals in Santa Rosa.



    No kidding. You can “fail” the test by running over a pedestrian and just say “hey, I passed the test 20 years ago” and the state says “fine by me!”



    Most of the pedestrian actuated signals are along the state highways like 19th Ave, Park Presidio, Sloat, Lombard, etc. The number of these type of signals are not common in SF, but the number of pedestrians that use these intersections are significant enough where these signals do not make any sense to have been installed in the first place; additionally, these signals indoctrinate poor driver behavior.

    As far as the other type of pedestrian actuated signals installed in SF, such as the yellow ones you see along Market St and in Chinatown, these are put into place for pedestrians who are blind. These devices let those pedestrians audibly know that it is okay to cross the street in a particular direction.



    If we’re going to assume that the pedestrian was crossing against a flashing red hand, shall we also assume that the driver was running a yellow light? A yellow light legally obligates the driver to clear the intersection if they are already in it or otherwise prepare to stop. Pedestrians should never assume drivers can see them, however, all drivers should never assume that they can drive with complete impunity.



    “rural cities” I love that, but am unfamiliar with the term. What are some examples of rural cities?

    jd_x was not commenting on this particular intersection, but intersections with beg buttons in general. Although, there are many such buttons downtown (market, and mission come to mind) but I’m not sure why since they don’t change the light time. Do they do anything?


    SF Guest

    Sorry but your understanding is not a correct depiction of this intersection or the neighboring intersections in Chinatown. The Stockton Street corridor traffic signals “automatically” cycle so that pedestrians can cross (including diagonally cross) with all motor vehicles halted and vice versa.

    The practice of pressing a button to cross a street is actually not very common in SF and used mainly in rural cities.


    SF Guest

    Our transportation system is actually built upon knowing the rules of the road. When you take a driver’s test you are graded on applying the rules of the road. No one is there to grade you after you pass the test.



    ” killing 78-year-old Pei Fong Yim”

    One thing I’ve found in my life is that 78 year olds tend to just come running out of nowhere at high speed. They are very nimble and quick, tend to change direction fast, and are very unpredictable in their rapid movements.



    If true, then this means that at one of those intersections where pedestrians have to press a button to get the “pedestrian walk” signal, then we have built into our cities the idea that pedestrians have to effectively “ask” motorists: “sorry to bother you because I know you’re in such a hurry (and of course, as a pedestrian, I apparently never am in a hurry), but would you mind if I crossed the road here? Again, so sorry to bother you because you are a clearly a much more important person than me, but I would really appreciate it.”). That is so ridiculous. I would love to see the day when pedestrians always get the signal and cars have to “ask”.



    “You can never assume however that everyone is a good driver.”

    That’s pretty funny to read, given that our transportation system is basically built upon that assumption.



    You pretty much don’t go to trial without being arrested first, n’est pas?



    “Else, nothing short of traffic crawling at 10mph on city streets would be allowed.”

    Replace 10mph with 20mph (“20 is plenty”) in your sentence and that is *exactly* how I think it should be. Driving by car should not be inconvenient in an urban environment exactly because it is so dangerous (for our safety and the planet’s). Having low speed limits would also make sure other more safer forms of transient are given priority because people would demand it since traveling by car would be so slow.

    It’s simply not worth anyone’s life so somebody can get somewhere faster (excepting those one-off cases of course, like emergency responders). It is outrageous that we think any other way, and that is the problem with urban design of the last century.



    Manslaughter shouldn’t be a cause for arrest before trial.



    It should depend on the circumstances, a car driver might be obeying the law and paying attention, but it is impossible to deal with certain events like a children who rushes behind a parked car in front of traffic, even if the car driver is paying attention and driving at an otherwise appropriate speed, for instance. Else, nothing short of traffic crawling at 10mph on city streets would be allowed.


    SF Guest

    The bigger question remains whether the police have any video footage or collaborative witnesses. Without evidence it may be difficult to prosecute the motorist if the driver claims the victim came out of nowhere.


    SF Guest

    Since I’m familiar with the neighborhood making a left turn from westbound Sacramento onto Stockton Street on a stale green signal can result in your not seeing a pedestrian crossing the intersection since Sacramento features a significant uphill slope; however, any good driver would not make that mistake. You can never assume however that everyone is a good driver.


    SF Guest

    Yes it’s illegal to cross with a red hand even with a green light. It’s only legal to cross with a white pedestrian silhouette. The Sacramento/Stockton intersection differs from Clay, Washington and Jackson since those intersections have traffic signals where only pedestrians cross. Sacramento/Stockton (which is only a block away) features traditional traffic lights where pedestrians cross with moving vehicles.

    While pedestrians always have the right-of-way even while crossing a red light you can never assume the motorist sees you in time.

    If this is a case where the victim crossed with a white pedestrian silhouette thinking Sacramento is like Clay Street whereby only pedestrians enter the intersection that’s a very poor assumption to make. You should always be aware of your surroundings at every intersection you cross and never assume motorists see you.



    Such senseless tragedy. My condolences to family and friends. It’s unacceptable that killing a pedestrian while driving (unless they literally jumped out in front of you) is anything but a felony with plenty of jail time and hundreds of hours of community service supporting pedestrian advocacy groups. And the city should feel disgusted with themselves for refusing to make the changes that calm or streets and prioritize walking and cycling above all else.

    Question: is it technically illegal to cross if you have the red hand but traffic in your direction has the green light? I’m pretty sure the hand is a “bonus” and the pedestrian always has the right of way as long as the light is green.



    I can’t imagine how you could be turning left and not see someone crossing the street. When you turn left, you’re heading in the way of oncoming traffic and sharing the green with peds going straight. It’s definitely a time one should be extra cautious.


    Shannon Tracey

    I don’t understand: ‘a policy change initiated in 2013 allows officers to arrest drivers in fatal crashes where there appears to be “probable cause.”’ They were previously prohibited from arresting people for possible manslaughter? I’m not an expert on police policies but if they need special permission to arrest people for crimes committed with a motor vehicle, that is pathetic.



    Did any blood get on the pink mustache?



    There is a fully covered walkway til the station. More importantly, this airport terminal (and its adjacent station) are going to be decommissioned as soon as the new terminal (visible on Google on the SE corner of the airfield) is opened.



    this news is hardly worth mentioning, even though it’s the worst thing that can possibly happen to either of them, I wish there were harsher penalties on motorists – at the very least it should be the same penalty as a non-injury DUI. I mean, what is the message here? An arrest for a misdemeanor doesn’t even disqualify you for employment or affect your capacity to operate a vehicle. If he punched her in the face because he couldn’t understand her, and she lived, the penalties would STILL be higher. **** you America.



    Vision Zero Teeth


    Et Tu, Mirkarimi?

    I can’t believe how many people applaud destroying the ability of neighbors to live in their homes without being subjected to nonstop high-volume noise that they can do absolutely nothing about. Obviously landlords.


    Et Tu, Mirkarimi?

    Totally! After all, the reason we’re in San Francisco is to make money, and our neighbors’ quality-of-life be damned. If they want to live somewhere without having their neighbors’ profiteering shoved down their throats day after day after day after day, they should leave SF.

    If you don’t understand why I have a chip on my shoulder, you obviously haven’t had to live next door to a business that’s chosen to abuse this poorly-written law to the greatest extent possible every single night. I guarantee you’d change your tune in days. I and my neighbors have been putting up with it for a year now, and many of us are at wit’s end.


    Et Tu, Mirkarimi?

    Let’s see you come and live right next door to the screams and drunken howling emanating from a rowdy open-air barroom the size of a three-car garage right next to your bedroom window every single night (and sometimes starting as early as 8 in the morning, on World Cup event days) for a year, the owners of which have told you to your face that they don’t care about your complaints and won’t life a finger to reduce the nonstop ruckus, and see if it doesn’t turn you into a “screamer and crazy” too. Until you’ve done that, you have no right to cast stones.


    Et Tu, Mirkarimi?

    So I assume you’d like to switch apartments with me, and live right next door to a three-car garage that’s been converted into a rowdy open-air barroom every night until late? I’m sure your inability to get any sleep or to work from home, and their complete stated disregard for the concerns or quality-of-lifeof anybody unfortunate enough to live within earshot, will do wonders for your own “vitality”.

    Please reply and let me know how soon we can do the swap, I am quite eager to be able to live in a room that’s quieter than a packed barroom again.



    I hope Captain Lazar knows that this isn’t one of the intersections with (what he is referring to) scrambled signals. Stockton and Clay/Washington/Jackson/Pacific were all programmed with it 12 years ago. Why SFMTA did not program Stockton/Sacramento is beyond me.