Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Qui tacet consentit



    Er, oops. I just checked out your district 5 blog. I am so sarcasm impaired. Sorry.



    > There are some exceptions of course (say, schools, where loading zones are vital and complex)
    Actually, this is one of the worst places. The most likely place for a child pedestrian to be hit is in front of their school, by the parent of another child.

    And given the lack of exercise kids these days (did I just say that?) get, maybe it’s important to make them walk a couple of blocks every morning.

    The percentage of kids who walk or bike to school has plummeted since the 60’s, and it shows.



    I see drivers do this on Market St with some regularity, blocking the only traffic lane. Sometimes the cars behind them are so terrified of the red carpet enforcement they sit there like sheep and don’t even go around.



    Jimbo don’t count too good.



    Uber issued a statement denying responsibility, and funded a study arguing that cities could save money by removing all bike lanes and giving money to Uber.



    Yes, you get right on that. When you break double digits, get back to us.

    While you’re at it, look up this number. 32,000. And San Francisco’s contribution, 35.



    Most people have stopped pointing out your errors, it’s more efficient to point out those few times you are not in error.



    This has always been my response to apologists for illegal double-parking in bike lanes: if the motorist is so entitled, and/or if the inconvenience is so slight, then why aren’t they parking in their own lane? It’s just a couple minutes!



    You think cyclists are TRYING to get hit by cars? You’re an idiot.



    Sloppy copy editing is the problem. Kan U unnerstand ths? Iff sew, duz that meen wee shud rite thys wai?



    What blocking a bike lane does do, without question, is inconvenience
    and delay cyclists, much like it delays and inconveniences other

    Wait – piss off. Double parking is the driver taking their own convenience instead of being inconvenienced by having to find real parking. Over the convenience of the cyclist. Difference being – the cyclist has that convenience because we built them a bike lane, and the motorist is operating illegally.



    What’s not nice? I make mistakes too, but I would want someone to point out my errors so I could correct them.



    Everyone understood it, so what’s the problem?



    No, he is right. It is incredibly dangerous to walk a block or two, with all those crazy/inconsiderate/inattentive motorists (including him) on the prowl.



    Just read your article on Caltrain, Roger. Looking forward to more of your posts!



    On this street, some 61% of users between 6 PM and 7 PM are cyclists. Coincidentally, this also happens to be the time when double parking is at it’s height. It’s not a mess. It simply a failure by SFPD and SFMTA to enforce the law during a period of time for highest risk of injury to people who are riding bicycles.



    If you are so confident that is not a BFD, why not stop for a minute or less in a lane meant for cars instead? That should get you a fresh assessment of ‘danger’.



    Try being nice.



    RichLL would say that those pedestrians should stay at home, perhaps not even get out of bed. After all, there are far more important things than living your life.



    > bicyclists who deliberately ride in pace with a car in the vehicle’s
    > blind spot hoping that the driver will cause an incident

    Riding in pace with a car in the blind spot does not automatically cause an collision. It is incumbent on the driver by law, to head-check their blind-spot before changing lanes.

    Unless … wait … it couldn’t be … those damned cyclists must be wearing Harry Potter’s cloak of invisibility. Its the same thing those slimy pedestrians use while walking within cross-walks – how could a poor driver possibly protect themselves against this magical level of subterfuge.



    On this street it’s not 3% of users. As was indicated in the article, people on bicycles represent about 61% of the traffic during 6 PM to 7 PM, which coincides with the largest number of doubling parking incidents. As a result, don’t you think it makes sense for the SFPD to use a few resources to control double parking for the couple of hours when bicyclists outnumber drivers on this street?



    About 61% of traffic on Valencia during the 6 PM to 7 PM hour comprises people on bicycles. I’d hardly say that this is a “small minority” of users.



    RichLL “…unless you decide to rush things”,

    Isn’t it also a decision to “rush things” when the motorist decides to illegally park in the bicycle lane instead of taking time and finding a legal place to park? Why is the illegal rushed behaviour by the motorist OK? I have to guess because it is your rush that matters most.


    Bob Gunderson

    What about visiting the hospitals and counting all the ~nearly hit by a bicyclist~ victims?



    This is what happens to someone who has their path blocked as a pedestrian and is forced into the roadway:



    I see the same behavior from motorists every day, and yet they are many times more likely to kill someone. Why isn’t that a bigger issue?


    Donovan Lacy

    I am curious what you observed regarding automobiles and those same intersections, given that automobiles kill and maim pedestrians and cyclists on a daily basis.


    Donovan Lacy


    This article is focused on the public safety issues that are created by cars illegally double parking in the bicycle lane. With the exception of noting the speeding drivers that killed two cyclists recently the only other reference that I can find is by you. Double parking is an issue for everyone that uses our roads not just cyclists.

    You also just got through stating that Valencia is a mecca for night life and now you are arguing that there was business lost from cars not being able to access these businesses? I think you would need to furnish evidence and data for this given your previous statement that Valencia St. businesses are doing very well.



    53 cars blocked the bike lane in one block. If that’s what happens on the “best cyclist street,” it says an awful lot about how bad every other street is.



    valencia is the best cyclist street in US, yet all of you are still whining after tons of concessions are made for a small minority of the population.



    ive done an observational study counting 100s of bicyclists over past 3 yrs. 95% of them do not come to a complete stop. 25% blow through at 10+mph



    Honestly, it’s incredibly entitled to believe that a car must be able to stop and pick up anybody at literally every single point on every street. The vast majority of people are perfectly capable of walking down the block or around the corner. There are some exceptions of course (say, schools, where loading zones are vital and complex), and sometimes others are inconvenienced because that’s the only way it’s going to work. But what you describe is that it’s fine to hold up and endanger who knows how many people behind you because you can’t manage to find a safe place to stop (and my whole argument is that there needs to be more such places so people don’t just stop in the middle of the street).



    Low-level details like “how will the cyclists get from this primary bike route onto that primary bike route.” Yeah that’s unimportant and not a fundamental part of the design.



    SFPD walks and drives by double parked cars all the time without doing anything. Nobody is saying they should give up on chasing a mugger because of a double parked car, but surely giving a honk and making people move along is the least they can do. We could also get DPT enforcing double parking, with parking tickets even if they can’t issue infractions the same way SFPD can. DPT could have more employees keeping streets clear and safe instead of checking parking meters.

    Anyway, ever been to New York? Stop for any appreciable length of time in the middle of the street and there’s a good chance you’ll quickly, at a minimum, hear a whirl from NYPD behind you encouraging you to get moving now.



    RichLL would say that those pedestrians should just stand there and wait for the obstacles to clear, and that any danger is the result of their desire to actually continue moving toward their destination.



    You’re walking down the sidewalk, but there are periodic obstacles that require you to dart off the curb into heavy traffic. Sure, you will try to do this as safely as possible because you don’t want to get run over, but surely you wouldn’t argue that this arrangement isn’t at all dangerous.

    Cyclists going straight are rarely hit. Merging creates conflicts. Conflicts create accidents.



    “It can for instance be 100% safe if you simply come to a halt and wait for the obstruction to leave. Zero danger.”

    Jeez ow, didn’t we just do this on SFist the other week?



    “Maybe there can be some sort of survey where we can ask cyclists if they have a goal of picking a fight with a motorist every time they get on their bike?”

    Yeah, okay, sure. That’s the goal. Not getting from point A to point B without getting killed or maimed. Picking fights is what we are all about, all the time.



    Given that an “incident” between a car and a cyclist could easily lead to the serious injury or death of the party that is not encased in several tons of metal, I find it incredibly unlikely that a significant number of cyclists are deliberately riding in anybody’s blind spot in the hope of getting hit. Most people have at least a general instinct towards self-preservation.



    So you’re part of the problem? No wonder you’re defending it. If you’re going to block something, block a driveway, not an active lane of traffic.



    Other interesting observations are bicyclists who deliberately ride in pace with a car in the vehicle’s blind spot

    So much for the argument that the cyclists delay motorists.



    Maybe what’s going on here is that you have a deluded vision that the cyclists are complaining so loudly about trivial behaviors. There are some real dickheads out there. Consider this, you’ve complained about cyclists you see whizzing through a stop sign at full speed. Those cyclists are the same species – homo sapien – as the driver of every car in 2016.

    If the problems were all trivial, these complaints wouldn’t exist. Maybe you just don’t comprehend the level of incivility that exists on our roadways with respect to the dangers to cyclists. Don’t project your civil behavior on the population at large that includes many millions that voted for Donald Trump.



    What’s your point? This is an article about drivers behaving badly.



    Where will you divert SFPD resources from? Giving out speeding tickets? Red light tickets? Crime patrols? Fill in the details here – I feel sure you have identified areas where the voters want less enforcement, right?



    You know, I’d never do that. I confess to stopping in the bike lane there from time to time, but either to drop off or to pick up having first checked that my passengers are ready and out front.

    I’d estimate my average dwell time at a minute or less. And so yes, you can wait if you lack the road skills to safely pass.

    But sure, 10 minutes is bad. And never leave the vehicle if you are stopped there



    I see.

    Enforcing double parking in the bike lane is “taking from everyone else”



    Since that hardly ever happens I don’t think there is much of a net gain there



    If you want more SFPD enforcement of double-parking then you need to identify areas that should have less enforcement.

    Stop signs in the wiggle. QED



    “What blocking a bike lane does do, without question, is inconvenience and delay cyclists, much like it delays and inconveniences other

    “It can for instance be 100% safe if you simply come to a halt and wait for the obstruction to leave. Zero danger.”

    They actually needed a category for cars parked in the bike lane for over 10 minutes. Just hang out and wait, buddy!