Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I sweep the sidewalk in front of my house and pick up the random (sometimes bizarre) stuff that appears regularly. In my observation, over a period of twenty years, there is somewhat less litter than there used to be. Fewer Muni transfers. Fewer cigarette butts (but still some.) Every once in a while fast food trash. (Hard to understand–there are no fast food outlets within a mile of my home.) Fewer dog feces these days, thankfully. In my opinion, if Harvey Milk had never done anything in his life beyond the Pooper Scooper Law, he would still deserve sainthood.

  2.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Many people in SF have lobbied to have street sweeping reduced to once every two weeks, but I haven’t heard of them getting rid of it entirely. Google street view suggests that the sweeping does not exist on Larkin north of Clay, and that has been the case since 2008 at least. Very interesting.

  3.  

    Pamelanwells1

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti790ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti790u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPinkGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti790o….,..

  4.  

    Pamelanwells1

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti790ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti790u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPinkGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti790o….,.

  5.  

    agvs

    We moved to the Bayview last year and there are lots of problems with littering and illegal dumping. There is one house on our block that constantly leaves bags of trash on the same corner, 2-3x a week. Of course animals get into it and it blows everywhere. I clean up around our place almost daily and have complained numerous times to 311 but they never do anything about it.

  6.  

    neroden

    You know, the traffic lights could be FLASHING RED (meaning the same as a stop sign) except when the train comes through and sets them to SOLID RED.

    Or are drivers so poorly educated that this would confuse them?

  7.  

    neroden

    I’d say you could get the driver’s license REVOKED for that SFPD officer, given the evidence of reckless driving.

    …if you could get the corrupt SFPD to actually prosecute him. Maybe go direct to the DA?

  8.  

    neroden

    Arrest the criminal cops. That’s the only way things will change.

    I don’t know the exact city ordinances in San Francisco. In New York I was interested to discover that the Mayor and City Council personally have the power of arrest. I wonder whether the Supervisors have the power of arrest in San Francisco?

  9.  

    neroden

    Has the SFPD officer driving the cruiser been identified? Reckless driving resulting in injuries: the officer is civilly and criminally liable. The police chief needs to arrest the criminal officer. Will he?

  10.  

    neroden

    The police do, however, have a constitutional duty to *not commit crimes themselves*. They also have a constitutional duty to obey the 14th amendment’s requirement to provide “equal protection of the laws”, but unfortunately in corrupt departments they will let cops get away with crimes just because they’re cops; this is a constitutional violation.

  11.  

    neroden

    The only way to change things will be with a police chief who is willing to *arrest* police officers and police captains when they blatantly commit crimes on camera. The rot is within the department, and only a chief who is willing to throw hundreds of cops in prison can fix it.

    Same as most of the other corrupt PDs in the US. The primary problem is a culture where cops act like the mafia and refuse to arrest or prosecute other cops. This is how you end up with corrupt cops running amok — when they break the law they never get punished, so they continue to break the law. The most cops typically have to do when they’ve committed crimes is “apologize”, when they should lose their jobs, pay fines, and go to prison.

  12.  

    Henry

    By Lincoln Park, do you mean McLaren Park?

    Some streets in my neighborhood (Nob Hill) are quite littered. Part of the reason is that there is no street sweeping to speak of. Example blocks are on Larkin between Pacific and Sacramento, and Pacific between Larkin to Jones. I was told by someone who used to be on the MPNA board that when they requested sweeping on those streets, they learned that there were people who were against it because they didn’t want to move their cars. In this case, some people valued their cars over how clean their neighborhood is.

  13.  

    roymeo

    Hodor

  14.  

    murphstahoe

    he’d stomp around, scream you f’n bitch, you f’n bitch, then have his female companion pull him off, then spit on a woman.

  15.  

    gneiss

    Are you suggesting that you’d run someone over with your car if they slapped it? You’d go to jail. Just like this young woman did on Bike to Work Day. http://sfist.com/2016/05/14/driver_who_allegedly_struck_market_1.php

  16.  

    the_greasybear

    Defending a bad thing for the environment with vague, macho threats of street violence. Jimbo is so winning right now. Sooooo winning.

  17.  

    jonobate

    Why? What would you do?

  18.  

    farazs

    Licensing for people as well, to snag them evil jay-walkers :D. Retro-reflective forehead tattoos would be most effective.

  19.  

    farazs

    > I’m not saying that distinction affects the legality of
    > the situation. Only *how serious it is*,
    A lot of other people disagree. From an arm-chair perspective, you can argue for technical distinctions. From the functional perspective of a person wanting to use that piece of public space, there is no distinction, just as there is none as per the law. If I were that driver’s psychiatrist or his mother, I might sympathize with him, but it warrants no understanding from the rest of us. Would it be okay to block the cross-walk in a like manner where pedestrians are waiting to cross? How about an intersection where cars are waiting? Would it be acceptable on a one-lane road with a physical divider, because that is exactly what this bike lane is!

    > SFPD and DPT officers do take that into account
    > when deciding whether or not to ticket.
    Yes, we know. That is a problem and it needs to change!

  20.  

    Jimbo

    if you slapped my car, you would be in in for a world of trouble

  21.  

    RichLL

    Just to be clear, I wasn’t objecting to the use of cameras to aid enforcement, whether on buses as you cited, or via CCTV, or red light cameras.

    I have a bit more of an issue with speed cameras but that is another discussion.

    But my point here was rather the idea of a “snoopers’ charter” where ordinary citizens can rat each other out. The situation now is that I can call DPT if I see an offense, but I cannot prosecute it directly myself. As you say, we’d need safeguards to prevent abuse. And SF voters recently rejected a “snoopers’ charter” idea at the polls regarding Airbnb. Nobody likes a snitch.

    As for your “citizens’ arrest” idea with cyclists then, yes, we’d probably need a licensing system for bikes, like some other cities have.

  22.  

    RichLL

    Fair points. Roger’s article refers to this vehicle as being “parked” in the bike lane, but from my perspective the car was stopped, not parked. The driver was with his vehicle and it appeared that the engine was running.

    I’m not saying that distinction affects the legality of the situation. Only how serious it is, and I believe that SFPD and DPT officers do take that into account when deciding whether or not to ticket.

    And yes, a policy of not enforcing certain offenses is a political decision, just like the recent discussion about the bike yield law. And political priorities can be changed.

  23.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The TL;DR on that BART thing is “we have no idea what we’re doing.”

  24.  

    farazs

    There is a difference between simply entering a bike land and being parked in it. Stopped and waiting to turn off is not parked. Broken down is not parked. Vehicles attending to an emergency or DPW repairs are not parked – they have effectively commandeered and closed that section of the road-way to other users. OTOH, a delivery vehicle stopped to make a delivery is parked! The law makes NO distinction for ‘government vehicle on official or unofficial business’, irrespective of what the Mayor and the Chief of police feel about it. The local municipality should to be held responsible for not enforcing in those cases.

  25.  

    leetramp

    You missed my point. The police and SFMTA have their hands full. Too many people parked (oh, excuse me, ‘loaded or unloaded passengers’) in bus stops, so they installed cameras on buses that parking officers can review and issue tickets to offenders. The result is that the number of cars parking in bus stops has gone down significantly.

    Any app/reporting system would have many details that would need to be worked out to make it “trustworthy,” but the concept is still an idea that might help work towards the reduction of those who use the bike lanes for clearly illegal activities.

    As far as pedestrians (or drivers) videoing cyclists going through red lights or stop signs, I say bring it on. For example, the cyclists who slow/stop at, then run, every red light on Valencia (and in the end get there at the same time I, who ride 13 MPH and get green light all the way down, deserve every ticket they get. One even rode through a red light this morning right across the street from a motorcycle cop.

    Of course, it will be much harder to identify cyclists, who don’t have license plates.

  26.  

    sebra leaves

    I guess the voters will have to decide who they want to run their transportation system. Regardless of who the SFMTA talked to, they got it wrong on Mission Street. They got it so wrong that the folks on Taraval, Geary, 19th Ave, Masonic and Lombard are now screaming STOP!. No more. We don’t want that on our streets and we no longer trust the SFMTA.
    If you want people to take the bus, removing seats and bus stops is not the answer. If you want people to take the bus, charging extra for “handling” cash, is not the answer. If you want people to take the bus, moving bus stops and shelters around is not the answer.
    Earth to SFMTA. People do not like change. People like stability. People do not want to get up every morning and look at an app to figure out how they are getting to work today.

  27.  

    RichLL

    Vehicles are allowed in the bike lane in a variety of circumstances, as everyone here apart from you appears to understand. These include any vehicle as specified by CVC 21209:

    1) To park where parking is permitted.
    2) To enter or leave the roadway.
    3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.

    And also those cases where the local municipality decides that it is in the public interest to not enforce vehicular use of the bike lane, and where tickets are rarely if ever issued. Examples include but are not limited to:

    4) Cabs/Shuttles as previously explained to you
    5) Emergency vehicles, naturally
    6) A government vehicle on official business
    7) Utility and DPW trucks engaged in vital repairs
    8) Street cleaning trucks
    9) Typically, delivery and construction trucks
    10) Any vehicle in an emergency or breakdown
    11) Other vehicles at the discretion of SFMTA and SFPD.

    The source of these conflicts appear to be a mismatch between cyclists’ expection that there should never ever be an obstruction in a bike lane, and the real-world situation where there will inevitably be some vehicular use of a bike lane.

  28.  

    murphstahoe

    Also note that a vehicle in the bike lane is not necessarily illegal , as discussed at length elsewhere in this thread.

    False. What was discussed earlier in this thread – and I quote you – was “it’s against the law to park in the bike lane, even to discharge passengers”. You have moved the goalposts when it was noted that your statement was incorrect.

  29.  

    RichLL

    Be careful of what you wish for. If the system allowed for anyone and everyone to be a “photo vigilante” and be able to get other road users cited, then it would be open season for everyone with a grudge, a prejudice or just a nasty attitude to try and get others into trouble.

    So do you want pedestrians to be able to video cyclists not stopping at stop signs and lights? How about taking pictures of pedestrians jaywalking? Allow civilians to ticket parked cars, maybe for a share of the fine? Where would it end and how would you control it?

    Also note that a vehicle in the bike lane is not necessarily illegal, as discussed at length elsewhere in this thread. A photo of a car in a bike lane would not show whether it was moving or stopped, whether it was about to make a turn or enter a driveway, or whether it was one of the classes of vehicle that SFMTA has a de facto “no ticket” policy.

    As for slapping cars, again, the risks of that are evident. Maybe 99 out of 100 drivers will be OK about it, but do it enough times and the possibility of encountering a violent nutjob increases toa probability and then to a certainty.

  30.  

    leetramp

    I regularly ride the length of Valencia then a few blocks on Market. I sometimes videotape my ride. I have been known to slap a car. I have seen SFMTA Parking Enforcement vehicles stopped in bike lanes to ticket a car. I have pointed out to police officers cars parked in bike lanes and been told “I’m on another call, I’ll come back and look after that call.”

    With that being said, I think that SFPD needs to provide a way to send in photographs/videos of drivers in bike lanes that we cyclists know will result in a ticket. We riders get frustrated because we know that drivers park in bike lanes all the time with no consequence–and there can’t really be any consequences if we leave it up to police since they have so many duties to conduct. Even if they made this a top priority, there probably aren’t enough officers to make drivers fear getting a ticket.

    Of course, there would be a fear that someone could “photoshop” a car/license plate into a photo to accuse someone of something they didn’t do. But perhaps a GPS-enabled app that would force someone to post the photo/video at the time and location might help avoid this (e.g. when I deposit a check using my phone, my bank requires my GPS be turned on to document my location). Yes, requiring us to post at the time and location might be a hassle for us (rather than waiting until we get to work or a safer place), but maybe if drivers started getting tickets, and knowing that any cyclist riding by may be turning them in, they would start being more worried about parking in bike lanes.

  31.  

    jonobate

    Is the Jason Henderson mentioned in this article the same Jason Henderson who sometimes posts here on Streetsblog?

  32.  

    goodmaab

    SFSU-CSU ignored the “fair-share” contribution when they elevated their enrollment cap during the SFSU-Masterplan with Corrigan. They preferred building on prior tenant open space the Mashouf Center, and will continue their expansionism at the cost of all other important issues, housing, transit and traffic impacts, along with stealing land through side deals with prior parkmerced management…. (SFSU-CSU should be shrunk to scale…

  33.  

    goodmaab

    Great Ideas, unfortunately they miss the point of getting the M-Line to Daly City BART as the priority. What was missing in the 19th Ave. Study was the link up front to Daly City BART vs. the dead-end in Parkmerced. Now we have Three major hurdles, the brotherhood way interchange, alemany fly-over and I-280. We designed and sketched a method of leaving the M-Line as an aireal platform or under-grounding traffic from Sloat over to I-280 entrance, and using 20th St. from Sloat to get it elevated on the western side of 19th Ave. using topography to free up the land at grade for a biking and walking new green-way. This was ignored as usual by the neighborhoods on the eastern side though it would have linked up the neighborhoods on the west and east side including SFSU-CSU and Stonestown to Mercy, and the Ingleside Terraces Areas down to METNA, and Daly City direct connectivity. The bike path is one solution, it should include a walkable route as well.

  34.  

    dat

    Have you tried not being a dick?

  35.  

    dat

    Jimbo is one of the most reliable trolls on this site. He used to put some effort into it but he’s gotten hella lazy over the past couple of months. He just drops in to stir the pot these days really.

  36.  

    RichLL

    Moreover, the center median provides shelter for crossing pedestrians. And, at 5 feet wide, is not wide enough for another traffic or turning lane anyway.

  37.  

    RichLL

    The purpose of the Masonic plan is not to reduce speeds or throughput. In fact the compromise plan was agreed over strong objections that it would lead to delays and congestion only after SFMTA gave assurances that there would be just a minimal impact on traffic throughput and travel times, and then only at peak times.

    We will see if their promise plays out. But there is certainly no implied mandate to slow speeds below the 25 mph limit that is already in place. And that is a low limit for a 4-6 lane highway with phased lights that carries over 30,000 vehicles a day. In fact it’s the same limit as on narrow streets like Hayes that has steep hills, stop signs and far less traffic.

    The Masonic plan adds safety by segregating road users and not by crippling traffic throughput, or so we are told anyway.

  38.  

    murphstahoe

    Head on collisions are not very efficient.

  39.  

    Marven Norman

    Ah, okay. In that case, if they aren’t really moving the curbs, then this is about the best design possible. The only other strategy would be to pursue speed reductions. Given the narrow lanes, they can probably do a speed survey after a few weeks and lower the speed limit. Also, construction might be a great time to add raised tables to keep speeds down along the corridor.

  40.  

    njudah

    Another project that has taken way too long to get completed. When you tell someone from Outside SF about how long things take, mostly due to appeasing people and having endless meetings, they are baffled.

    Then you see quotes like this

    “Others, such as Alexis Jakob, complained that nobody notified her or any of the other residents of the project during the planning phases, which started in 2008. “
    The fact is you could have put up billboard with loudspeakers 24/7 about the project and someone will always say “no one was told” and allege some “secret meetings” led to the changes, regardless of what actually happened. This will continue as the SFMTA appeases the few and the loud, vs. applying good planning and outreach to their projects, with a focus on getting things done.

  41.  

    Andrew Wisman

    I was charged 2900$ given 3 years p.I.c. and still can’t go back to work with my union due to prop. 47-49. Part of AB 109. I was tired of 2 guys in there Porsche Cheyenne cruising me, so I hit the SUV when they past me in traffic. The police didn’t wish to “hold court in the street” even after I showed them my best resistle moves. If you had bike insurance yo wouwouldn’t be in trouble. But hitting a person on the way to the bank or dekuveryung a package could be scene as bank robbing or espionage.

  42.  

    RichLL

    Wrong, the corrrection stands. I note that of all the points I made on this thread, you only attempt to refute the one that you admit is perhaps the least relevant, indicating that you have no answer to the others.

    Your personal attacks and stalking here are getting tedious. But they only make me more determined to speak my trith, so they are also self-defeating.

    You are not helping your cause by coming across as so fragile, intolerant and easily riled.

  43.  

    murphstahoe

    You were wrong, it was pointed out you were wrong, you doubled down by saying “well, it’s not relevant but I’m not really wrong because I only meant this narrower case”, which isn’t narrow enough to even meet the standard the SFMTA and SFPD go by which is that it’s still illegal but unenforced. This was pointed out and you were finally boxed to nowhere and you went on to your next thread.

    This is standard operating procedure which is why it is pointless to respond to your inane trolling.

  44.  

    the_greasybear

    Whatever *doesn’t* work, amirite?

  45.  

    Chris J.

    I wasn’t responding to the situation. I was responding to your blanket statement below by providing a situation where it can be appropriate:

    At least some cyclists evidently believe that striking a vehicle with one’s hand is an approprate way of letting the driver know that you are there.

    The bicyclist in the video was hitting the vehicle probably for a different reason: to tell the driver they were doing something wrong, not to say “they are there.” I wasn’t saying I condone that.

  46.  

    mx

    Do you really think the city is a better place if people go around slapping cars that break traffic laws? I, recognizing that the driver’s reaction is far worse, think the city is a better place if people don’t fight with each other in the middle of Market St (and if people get tickets for blocking bike lanes).

  47.  

    RichLL

    The car was not moving and so it is irrelevant to claim that this cyclist was worried “If the driver doesn’t stop, the car will strike your body”.

    Let’s analyse the reasons to strike a car:

    1) Car is in an illegal place. If we all struck every vehicle that acts illegally then we could all spend all day doing that. I would probably strike every bike in the Wiggle, for instance

    2) Car is inconveniencing me or delaying me. Ditto. Being annoyed is part and parcel of using the roads. I don’t jump out of my car and strike every double-parked car in SF.

    3) Danger. Yeah, if it’s genuine. But there was no danger in this situation. The car wasn’t moving as already stated. The cyclist easily passed without going into traffic. Or could have waited if there was risk.

    So there was no good reason to strike the car. The reality is that she struck the car because she was angry that a car was there and delayed her slightly. And that was an emotionally immature, potentially dangerous and un-necessary escalatory act.

  48.  

    mx

    No. She may be at fault for slapping the car, but she is not at fault for what happened next.

  49.  

    RichLL

    I am simply suggesting to you that invoking claims of historical “justice” and fights for civil rights here are overblown.

    This girl lashed out angrily at a driver who was in her way, and things got out of control. “Justice” really doesn’t come into it. Both parties acted badly.

  50.  

    Chris J.

    We’re trying to determine a safe, fair and effective way of responding to inconsiderate behavior by other road users.

    Lightly ringing a bell sounds about right to me.