Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Jeffrey Baker

    How does the E line work south of the Ferry Building? I see that its stop is listed as Harrison instead of Folsom. Is it just going to stop in the middle of the road?


    Andy Chow

    Other than an opportunity to show Muni’s history, this E-line has nothing to do with the old E-line. Muni used to give letters in alphabetical order as lines open. The A line was their first line, skipped some letters like G and I, down to J through N, which got preserved when Muni was converting rail to bus in most of its system.

    I don’t think there’s a strict standard to give letters to lines anymore. May be E was given because the line is named Embarcardero, and the same applies to T when the line is name Third Street. May be F was given because it is the next better after E, or because it serves Fisherman’s Wharf. The F line today has nothing to do with the F line back then (which is now line 30).



    See above re. Road Rage.





    And on every parking meter between Pine and California





    I want to keep seeing more supervisors stepping up to support an Idaho Stop Law for SF. In fact, how awesome would it be if Captain “Letter-of-the-Law-But-Only-for-Bicyclists” Stanford’s vendatta/crackdown against bicyclists actually generated the momentum needed to get such a law passed in SF?



    When another pedestrian dies from being hit by a motorist (been 20 this year so far, so we’ll have another one in the next couple weeks, you can count on that), you can tell us all how it was good the cops were using their extremely limited resources ( to stop bicyclists rolling stop signs. You, and SFPD, can also tell the family and friends of the future victim how glad you were the cops were protecting them from those “dangerous” bicyclists instead of going after the motorists who actually kill people.



    “Are they as self-centered/self-absorbed there as here?”

    How would you suggest measuring self-absorption in a way that would enable us to objectively compare?



    Jaywalking was not made illegal to protect pedestrians. It was made illegal to enhance the convenience of drivers in an era when driving was a new thing. This was done at the behest of car companies, who put a great deal of effort into coining and popularizing the phrase “jaywalking” (“jay” being a term of art at the time for an idiot or backwards person).

    So perhaps your comparison is apt, but not for the reasons you probably think.



    don’t feed the troll, just engage in civil obedience!

    I am starting to bike more and more in the center of the lane.

    If I am “just” a vehicle, then damn it I want the whole lane.



    If being despised keeps me alive, I rather be despised and alive rather than loved and dead



    And isn’t that what’s really important here – cracking down on things that annoy Alex?



    Helmets are safety gear. Anyone who rides a bike in the city without one is insane, in my (perhaps fallible) opinion.

    How using appropriate safety gear has anything to do with signifying membership in a “community of choice” escapes me. Unless that community is “people who want to go on living without a traumatic brain injury.”



    What part of “ignore this fool” didn’t you understand



    Anybody who refers to law-abiding San Franciscans on bicycles as ‘assholes’ is a troll. Period.



    I don’t think you understand the proposed change if you think “safety will be compromised for those cyclists who roll through stop signs in an unsafe manner”

    The concept of “Yield” is pretty well established.



    “If rolling stops are legalized, then jaywalking should be legalized for the same reason.”

    Agreed. And I bet most cyclists would agree as well. Assuming a traffic-calmed street, i.e only two narrow lanes of cars going 20 mph or less, protected bicycle lanes, daylighted intersections, and adequate sidewalks, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with pedestrians jaywalking as long as, just like with bicyclists and the Idaho Stop rule, they yield to the traffic they are crossing first.

    Jaywalking and bicycling being relegated to the gutters of the road were both part of the same movement by automobile companies to take streets away from people and give them over to cars early in the 20th century.


    Nicasio Nakamine

    Based on my experience both on the internet and out on the road, I’m pretty dang aware that pretty much everyone hates me when I’m on two wheels.







    He *is* missing the point, which is that bicyclists not stopping at each empty intersection they come to is not actually a public safety threat, but the captain of Park Station is acting as if it is – in direct contradiction of what the safety data tells us.

    What do you think the point is?



    Once again, p_chazz believes that Streetsblog comments are actually scientific evidence for his theories. You should run this one by policy-makers, scientists, or any rationally-thinking person and see what kind of support you get.

    Oh, but you want to play this (nonsensical) game? Go look at which comments on pretty much any article on this website have the most up-votes. Are they pro-cyclists or anti-cyclist? Let’s start with this article. As of the time I wrote this: the most up-voted are 9 for BBnet300’s, 6 for one of yours. Whoops: looks like, by your p_chazz statistical method, you lose. And since this is apparently how you think we should decide policy, I think that means we need to start removing car lanes for bicycle lanes, right?



    The polls show tremendous support for bicycling in the city–but ignore all that! p_chazz has four sock puppets in the Streetsblog comment section–so he speaks for “everyone”!



    We also have this video ( in which a Muni driver yells at a passenger in a wheelchair and tells her that she “shouldn’t even be on a bus”-



    Troll = person who disagrees with me.


    SF Guest

    I don’t agree with the proposed change from the perspective safety will be compromised for those cyclists who roll through stop signs in an unsafe manner.

    If rolling stops are legalized, then jaywalking should be legalized for the same reason.



    The relevant SFPD captain is threatening a harassment campaign against what hundreds of daily bike commuters “usually” do on the Wiggle, so how things “usually” work and how things would work specifically under an anti-bike crackdown are quite different. This civil obedience action successfully highlighted the difference.


    Ryan Brady

    I commute on foot 6 miles per day. By far the biggest dangers to me are cars making turns without looking, tall vehicles obscuring LoS at intersections, and cars blocking the crosswalk in SOMA because they can’t anticipate intersection traffic.

    The occasional bike on the sidewalk is super annoying, and I’d like to see those cited too, but bikes running stop signs and stoplights are *rarely* an issue for me.



    Based on the number of trolls on the internet, humanity is doomed.



    Andy suggests some changes, and you basically said we shouldn’t do so because you know, the law.


    SF Guest

    I agree traffic laws are not always written perfectly, but neither is Vision Zero. To borrow a quote from Dirty Harry from Magnum Force while addressing vigilante cops “until some changes come along that make sense I’m going to follow and uphold the law.”



    Judging from the number of up-votes anti-bicyclist comments have received, I’d say I’m right on the money.



    Those drivers in Millbrae should do a #stopin



    Oh, look–the delusional anti-bike extremist thinks he is speaking for “everyone else” again, and you’ll just *never* guess what “everyone else” happens to think about law-abiding San Franciscans on bicycles!



    “except that SF’s cyclists seem to find ways to alienate people who would otherwise support their cause.”

    This is never true. I always here the haters claim “if the cyclists just did blah then I would support them” but in practice if that happens they just move the goal posts again. Meanwhile there are plenty of people who are not cyclists, see an event like this as completely ridiculous, but then still support cycling and bike lanes.



    You know damned well that enforcement is for harmless bicyclists, not for road-ragers who choose to illegally and dangerously operate their 3-ton death monsters. SFPD for the lose!



    Why are you amazed by this? If you make a right turn, you must do so from the right side of the lane, having merged over there when safe. If someone screws up and as a result of that I get hit, damn straight I’m going to be angry. Because you know – “If you break the law and you’re dumb enough to get caught – you pay”



    Traffic laws have not been handed down by the lord himself. They are rules we have adopted because whomever was in charge decided they were appropriate. History is littered with laws that have been put in place that were found, in retrospect, to be poorly considered.



    There you go again. Always telling people what to do.



    Thanks. It’s difficult to know what really happened from a video. It seems that seeing is believing, but looks can be deceiving if you don’t see what happened leading up to the incident on the video.



    No, silly. Let me spell it out for you: Morgan Fitzgibbons’ perspective on reality is warped by his pro-bicycle bigotry.



    Based on the number of up-votes for anti-cyclist comments regarding this action, it sounds like cyclists are clueless as to how despised they are.



    If you want to create a serious dialogue in order to gain greater acceptance for bicycling, it would be helpful to not use perjorative labels for other road users. If you just want to sound off and come across as a chest-beating bicycle extremist, be my guest. I don’t care. Hell, I don’t drive a car. I never even learned how to drive. But I don’t have a pathological hatred for cars either.



    Based on the comments just on this blog, it sounds like a repeat event is needed to make the point more clearly understood.


    SF Guest

    @Andy Chow: your suggestion to start a pilot program to legalize rolling stops is analogous to legalizing pedestrians to jaywalk. While some are able to do it without increasing safety risks to others and themselves there are those who would pose a safety hazard to others and themselves.

    Traffic laws are intended to apply to everyone on this premise.



    how many cars have you been hit by?


    Mr T

    If you break the law and you’re dumb enough to get caught – you pay. Simple logic. The cyclist who was crying about getting caught breaking the law is obviously a spoiled brat. If you can’t play by the rules go to East Bay.

    I’m amazed by the large number of cyclists who think they can pass on the right side of cars in a line of traffic, only to punch/hit/scream at drivers and their cars because the cyclist was suddenly “cut off”.

    Thanks for sharing Dave!



    It’s not “lol pedestrian”

    It’s “lol does not read actual info on traffic hazards and thinks bikes are equally or more dangerous to him as cars”



    Just because they haven’t hit one doesn’t mean they aren’t endangering pedestrians.

    Just because the sun isn’t predicted to die for millions of years doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen tomorrow!