Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    He’s not parallel parked. At the beginning of the video he makes a U-turn, then enters the right-turn-only lane with his right signal flashing. Then suddenly he lurches left across the bike lane.

  2.  

    jd_x

    Holy s**t. This is unbelievable. This needs to go to major media to show the kind of unbelievably unsafe bicyclists put up with all the time. It also needs to go to the SFMTA to show them why this damn paint is not safe; we need truly protected intersections. And we not need cops who not only don’t cause such accidents but are out there enforcing dangerous motorist behavior that endangers bicyclists Not only does SFPD not try to protect bicyclists and is blatantly biased against them in collisions with motorists, but they are the ones causing collisions (this video) and creating unsafe conditions (e.g. double-parking in bike lanes).

    I would love for SF Streetsblog to follow-up on this story with SFPD and SFBC and elevate it. If there is no punishment for the cops pulling this illegal (and the video makes it clear the cops made an illegal move and are 100% at fault), then how can we possibly expect bicyclists to ever get fair and safe treatment in this city. And, it would also be another reason the police chief needs to go; he has done nothing to improve the bias against bicyclists in the department (not to mention the many other problems that have occurred under his watch).

  3.  

    thielges

    Wow, it looks like the companion event to BTWD day was in full force: Harass or Endanger a Bicyclist Day. I saw four incidents of motorists harassing bicyclists during yesterday morning’s commute: Tailgate honking and passing unnecessary close . That’s four more incidents than I normally observe in a day.

    This makes me wonder whether there was a higher than average amount of anti bicyclist vitriol on talk radio yesterday morning.

  4.  

    thielges

    Looks like the police officer also failed to turn on the left blinker before moving out of the parallel parked position.

  5.  

    thielges

    Both can be true at the same time. If you’re in Salt Lake City on a trip from San Francisco to New York you have certainly come a long way. And there’s still a long way to go.

  6.  

    gneiss

    Worse still, according to the cyclist in the comments the officers involved apparently lied about the incident by attempting to claim their lights and siren were activated when they moved out of the turning lane. I hope this video makes it to the prosecutors office.

  7.  

    mx

    This guy is in the comments of the Hoodline article. Apparently he’s sort of ok, but injured. That’s a hard hit on the video too. I hope someone from the SFBC is aware of this incident as well.

  8.  

    Jamison Wieser

    I’m all for cutting down on stops, and spreading them wider, but that’s an area I think really needs to be tread lightly on because of shifting demographics.

    The biggest segment of the population by far are the baby boomers who are hitting retirement and there’s a shift for towards transit as people age out of driving. The trend indicates the boomers will be living longer than ever before and we shouldn’t be selling people short 20 years down the line when there are so many other ways to speed up service with only limited stop removal/relocation.

    Muni Metro is the only light-rail system I know of where a platform, ticket machine, and boarding ramp (if not completely level platforms) provided at every single station.

  9.  

    gneiss

    SFPD driver fails to signal, runs into cyclists on bike to work day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eacBcZKSh7Q

  10.  

    the_greasybear

    A motorist runs over a bicyclist at the peak of rush hour in the rush direction, right on Market Street in the heart of downtown San Francisco, in full view of hundreds of passers-by and just yards from the Bike Coalition’s ‘energizer station’ on freakin’ Bike to Work Day.

    No scenario could better illustrate the harsh reality of this city’s negligent bicycle infrastructure, watered-down improvement plans, and disingenuous civic ‘leaders.’ Other, better cities have ‘Vision Zero.’ Our city is stuck with Zero Vision.

    I hope Streetsblog fully covers this story–the medical status of the victim, the legal status of the perpetrator–and holds City Hall’s feet to the fire until they prioritize the lives and safety of San Franciscans who travel by bicycle over the convenience of those who travel by private automobile. Talk is insufficient. Action is required.

  11.  

    SF Biker Unthinker

    I posted a comment. It was deleted WTF SF Streetsblog? Can you tell me why that was removed heres what the post said: SFStreetsblog has been pretty disappointing lately. Childish insults of actual improvements to the bike network because drivers used them badly isn’t helpful. The tone is hostile and judgmental where it should be constructive. There are lots of things to talk about in Sanfrancisco Transportation besides lazer ficus for protection bike lanes, which also have problems and aren’t a magic bullet. Please explain why this original comment was censored.

  12.  

    p_chazz

    “We’ve seen a 184 percent increase in cycling in the past decade,” she said with her trademark ebullience. “San Francisco is a biking city!”

    From < 2% to 4.4%. When you have a small base figure a small gain can look large, when expressed as a percentage.

  13.  

    Curmudgeon

    There aren’t enough loading zones as it is, and the on street parking sites are all too often the loading zones….

  14.  

    RichLL

    Well, the thing with parking-protected bike lanes is that it is the parking that protects you! So we don’t need to remove it.

    Which is why it works less well on blocks where there are lots of garages and driveways, and therefore less street parking.

    The holy grail with bike lanes is to enable them without taking out either parking or traffic throughput. The only way I know to do that is to convert pairs of 2-way cross-streets into alternate one-way streets, and then use the width you save to create front-in or diagonal parking.

  15.  

    RichLL

    Reminds me of discussions about civil rights between whites and blacks. Whites always point out how far civil rights have come in the last 60 years, whereas blacks always focus on what they claim is still be done.

  16.  

    RichLL

    Agreed, and in fact I think Streetsblog has gotten better of late.

  17.  

    RichLL

    I wonder if bike lanes continue to expand whether there will be a booming market in mopeds, electric bikes and other forms of motorized bicycles.

    In any event what Greasybear is suggesting is illegal, which I suspect he wells knows.

  18.  

    Justin

    “San Francisco has come a long way.” When it comes to cycling? Well kinda, more like rather San Francisco has a long way to go, especially if we want to really make San Francisco a GENUINE biking city, because honestly it still isn’t, at least not yet.

  19.  

    Justin

    Regarding street improvement options for Golden Gate Ave, there’s one option i notice that is totally missing, that is having one PARKING PROTECTED bike lanes, can be on either side, with two remaining ONE-way traffic lanes. What’s best about this option is that it removes little to no parking yet it accommodates all the street safety desires. The question is what side of the street would the PROTECTED bike lane go? I’m so curious to why that option isn’t included when it should be???? Golden Gate Ave can have the PARKING PROTECTED Bike Lane, retain most of the parking and reduce unsafe speeding through narrowing the remaining two lanes on this street without converting it to two-way. This would be the perfect balance between the two other proposals. I hope this option will find its way through these community meetings.

  20.  

    Printtemps

    District 11 represent, big hug Julia, thanks Roger.
    -Anthony

  21.  

    City Resident

    Thanks, Josh, for the info – and great proposals to improve bicycle infrastructure!

  22.  

    Ziggy Tomcich

    The Golden Gate Park bike lanes are are awful and everyone knows they’re awful. But they were implemented on a shoestring budget before any protected bike lane (aka cycletrack) specifications were established.

    The Golden Gate Park bike lanes wouldn’t meet AASHTO, NACTO, FHWA or Caltrans specifications that govern how protected bicycle lanes should be designed. But all of these standards are relatively new and didn’t exist at the time when the Golden Gate park bike lanes were built.

    These aren’t the only dud protected bike lanes. There are several others in other cities in the US that have similar design flaws, which is what helped established writing rules for how protected bike lanes should be built. So don’t worry! Now that these standards are in place, it’s very unlikely we’ll see too many more Golden gate park type mistakes.

  23.  

    Josh Handel

    Our big capital project ask was to build a bike/ped bridge across Brotherhood Way from Payson&St Charles to Chester St., similar in design to the “Snake Bridge” in Copenhagen (link below). It would eliminate a huge amount of elevation gain/loss on the route, and allow cyclists and pedestrians to avoid waiting to cross Brotherhood Way. We of course also asked for more obvious things – like green paint, bicycle boulevard treatment on Beverly, BayAreaBikeShare stations, and more accessible secure bike parking.

    http://inhabitat.com/bicycle-snake-bridge-makes-urban-cycling-even-safer-in-copenhagen/

  24.  

    mike brown

    Censorship alert! My comments that discussed flaws with parking protected cycle tracks and pointed out a made up statistic from another commenter have been removed. So disappointing to see how far streetsblog has fallen.

  25.  

    mike brown

    Made up statistic alert!

  26.  

    mike brown

    It is too much to expect 100% understanding of the design, especially from children. People get hit crossing the parking protected cycle track in Golden Gate Park. As a cyclist, I feel particularly uncomfortable when I’m going faster on the downhill portion of the parking protected cycle track. I have had plenty of people cross in front of me without looking. Buffered bike lanes have their issues but I prefer not being boxed in, having nowhere to go if something unexpectedly enters my path of travel.

  27.  

    mike brown

    This member of the public wholeheartedly agrees.

  28.  

    mx

    Or mistaking bike counters for bike infrastructure :) Is there a reason we need a counter in both directions on Market at 10th?

  29.  

    p_chazz

    Cyclist suffers major head injuries in Great Highway collision http://sfist.com/2016/05/11/cyclist_suffers_major_head_injuries.php

  30.  

    joechoj

    Ok. Snail mail, or email? If email, what address?

  31.  

    djconnel

    Don’t be hard on Streetsblog. The former editor/main guy for SF was Aaron Bialick. He moved on. Give it some time to find its voice again. I’m just really pleased to have such clear advocate there for non-vehicular transportation and livable streets.

  32.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    I mailed the city of Piedmont about this already. It would help if multiple people contact them.

  33.  

    mx

    That’s right, more people fighting it out on the streets will solve all our problems.

    Interestingly, the Scoot Network folks say that their scooters are legally mopeds and therefore technically legal to ride in bike lanes, but they tell you not to do it (and not to lane split).

  34.  

    Rudixulous

    This embarrassing empty post of mindless drivel further proves the descent of SF Streetsblog into bad advocacy and worse writing. All the photos are of improvements that DO help bicyclists. Sure, drivers use them wrong, but I’m not convinced that bad drivers are enough to validate childish insults of real improvements. And while you left the door open to backpedal into “that’s why we’re asking the public,” your tone is cynical rhetorical judgment. Can this even be considered journalism? Let’s ask the pubic.

    Is there really so little to address in SF transportation that complaining about progress (as endorsed by the SFBC) is predictably tiresomely lambasted as “not enough?” So…incremental progress is not enough? Fascinating. This isn from insightful discussion, hardly even thoughtful. It’s just a soap box with a line-up of idiot speakers…or an idiot speaker on repeat.

    I’ve also noticed the monotonous call for protected bike lanes. Protected protected protected Gimmegimmegimme. I got news. Drivers don’t use protected lanes or cycle tracks right either. They park in them, drive in them, and door bicyclists in them too. Transportation advocates the world over know there is no magic bullet. Go to where there’s the biggest bicycling populations. Check out Latin America, Asia and Europe and realize they all have a wide variety of yugely different infrastructure, sometimes with similar land use, often without protected bike lanes. (WHOA!)

    Streetsblog was respectable in other cities I’ve lived. It’s a new age in how we think and talk about transportation, with considerations of users, policy, technology and culture. You really can’t drum up anything more interesting than “Hey, but this isn’t protected?!”

    Thankfully more reader comments and people I’ve talked to, recognize how far this has fallen. Hopefully someone at Streetsblog who can make a difference will recognize it too.

  35.  

    joechoj

    I just saw those new sharrows on Moraga. There are already plants draped out halfway onto the sharrows in some spots! And that’s what they look like when new!

  36.  

    joechoj

    I walk this frequently. I can’t make the talk, but the changes I think would make a big improvement are: when you push the ‘beg’ button to cross Brotherhood, it shouldn’t take a minute or so to activate the cross signal; and concrete barriers protecting the pedestrian refuge from the 3 lanes of northbound traffic that veer alarmingly toward waiting pedestrians as they turn from Junipero Serra onto 19th. If you’d consider sharing this at the talk, I’d appreciate it!

  37.  

    murphstahoe

    and it’s known – “I am stepping out into a bike lane, look for bikes” whereas the typical configuration here is “is there a car back there? OK no here we go!” And the bike lane gives a buffer that signals that in fact there are no cars there.

  38.  

    SFnative74

    That was my first thought too when I saw the photo.

  39.  

    thielges

    Those are passenger side doors and less likely to pop open compared to the driver side doors on 99% of USA’s bike lanes that parallel parking.

  40.  

    the_greasybear

    Whenever possible, bicyclists should physically impede motorcycles from illegally traveling in bike lanes. Force them back into the lanes they are legally required to travel in, slow them to a crawl–if there is no longer any advantage to breaking the law, they will stop.

  41.  

    mike brown

    Yesterday, when discussing a bike lane next to parking in San Francisco, the author called it a ‘death door lane’. Now, when showing a bike lane just as close to parking in Denmark, it is a serene paradise. You can still get doored in Denmark. Cutting and pasting from Denmark to SF isn’t going to make all the problems go away.

  42.  

    City Resident

    Thanks for the heads up and invite and I’m curious as to what your proposals are. The existing arrangement seems safe and it’s a nice car-light route but it’s cumbersome, with its climb and lack of a curb cut, as mentioned.

  43.  

    Josh Handel

    Funny you chose St Charles and Brotherhood as the lead photo – tomorrow San Francisco State’s Bicycle Geographies class (which I’m a part of) will be giving a presentation on how to improve that route, and bike mode share in general. St Charles to 19th to Beverly to Holloway is the most common way that students at SF State get from BART to campus. I invite all Streetsblog readers to come, it’s from 2:10 to roughly 3pm in HSS 287!

  44.  

    jd_x

    One thing I’ve been noticing more of recently is motorcycles and scooters riding in the bike lanes, especially when car traffic is stopped and lined up at a light and the motorcyclist thinks they can use the bike lane to blow by all the stopped cars (and they’re not turning right when they do thus, but getting back into the traffic lane to go straight ahead usually). Not only do I find it nerve-wracking to have such a powerful vehicle right next to me, but the exhaust fumes and noise is really repulsive. Would love to see SFPD to a crackdown on this sort of thing. Of course, it’s a well-known fact that SFPD doesn’t do any enforcement, let alone crackdowns, against actions that endanger bicyclists since they are apparently second-class users of the roads ….

  45.  

    @jdbig

    No arguments that it seems a bit silly at first blush, but I feel like Streetsblog used to offer more thoughtful critiques.

    I just double checked at https://www.sfmta.com/maps/san-francisco-bike-network-map and St. Charles Ave is actually an official SF bike route. Just like the Wiggle may not be intuitive, my guess is that this route is far from intuitive to [any] riders and so the Sharrow makes a fair amount of sense (again, even lacking curb cuts).

    The point of my initial post was that it just strikes me as lazy to make fun of obscure but quasi-thoughful sharrows as opposed to incredibly inadequate infrastructure on super popular routes, such as awkward supersharrows running diagonally across Market in the middle of Van Ness (intersections are my favorite places to change lanes) or the new bike counter on Valencia between 16th/17th that will maybe count 2/3rds of riders due to double parking.

  46.  

    murphstahoe

    I don’t think what you write is worth engaging upon, but reading it I do believe that you have well formed views, even if I think they are incorrect. For example you don’t present facts that are clearly incorrect, you might have a different interpretation of what those facts mean, but generally you have your facts straight and rarely speculate on facts regarding things you have little or no exposure to. I don’t engage with you because I find the debate tiresome, but I don’t think you’re playing games with people.

    RichLL on the other hand repeatedly will jump in with a statement of fact that is clearly false, not just to a trained observer but to anyone who has a passing interest in these sorts of issues. Most of these times they are debunkable with a 5 second google search. So someone goes off and finds the actual fact, points it out, and every time there is the exact reponse – “well, what I was trying to point out was really…” misdirecting from the falsehood.

    That stinks of just getting kicks from getting people to go to google to debun his falsehoods – commonly known as “trolling”. There are plenty of other tactics he uses – and they are spot on with the most famous local troll of recent times – RoyTT

  47.  

    David Corby

    Cyclists are going to ignore the “No bikes in the transit lane.”

  48.  

    Juanboy

    SF is the only city that makes traffic worse on purpose…these changes are a disaster and have blocked up traffic for miles!

  49.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    In Piedmont we now have sharrows painted literally in the gutters, in a naked attempt to force bicyclists to ride on the extreme edges of the roadway. I will take some pictures tomorrow.

  50.  

    Juanboy

    the new Mission Street is a disaster…traffic has gone up in every street surrounding…SF is probably the only city that actively tries to make traffic worse