Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Picky

    We however, must be aware that the police is in charge of enforcing the law. If one believes that they are enforcing it incorrectly, they can file a complain and even challenge it in a court of law.

  2.  

    douglasawillinger

    Use them for an extension into SF as a full freeway tunnel to connect with he existing freeway network.

  3.  

    Jimbo

    its done wonders for decreasing deaths from motorcycle accidents. you think it should be optional there too?

  4.  

    gneiss

    While you might think that making people wear helmets would provide a social good, In the real world, the enforcement of bicycle helmet violations by the police is arbitrary and capricious, and usually used as a tool for harassment and intimidation. https://youtu.be/hT3zToHrmZA

  5.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Mandatory helmets for automobile drivers would save many more lives than mandatory helmets for cyclists. I demand that automobile drivers wear race car style helmets and use 5 point suspension harness seats. For their own safety, of course.

  6.  

    NoeValleyJim

    I wouldn’t go that far, but at least they reply to his email.

  7.  

    Jimbo

    i was adding helmet wearing on top of streetscape changing, not instead of.
    im in favor of the masonic project for this very reason, but had a very close friend die who was not wearing a helmet. So we need street improvements to make accidents fewer and far between , and we need a helmet law to lower the chance of death when a person is hit. Motorcycle laws were changed years ago to force helmets, and the results have been spectacualr as the death rate per accident is now much lower.

    So we need to push for fewer accidents and for less severe injuries when they do happen.

  8.  

    Gezellig

    Think bigger picture, Bobby G! I can imagine an even better world…can you? Wouldn’t it be even cheaper and safer to give every student their own SUV to drive to school/work in?

    http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/psa-targets-distracted-teen-drivers.jpg

    Imagine there’s no schoolbus. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to walk or bike for. And no public transportation too. Imagine all the parking. Driving life in peace…

    You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one. I hope SF schools’ll join us. All the lots will be as one:

  9.  

    thielges

  10.  

    roymeo

    “That’s why neither the general public nor the police is equipped to interpret the law. “

  11.  

    roymeo

    It’s also nice to see that “That’s why neither the general public nor the police is equipped to interpret the law. “

  12.  

    roymeo

    “But until that is done, it is what it is. “

    “Yes, the law is hard to understand. That’s why neither the general public nor the police is equipped to interpret the law. “

    *smoke billows*

    Welcome to lesson #2 at the James T Kirk School of Home Computer Repair.

  13.  

    roymeo

    That’s taking primary school government class information a bit too literally.

  14.  

    murphstahoe

    jd_x… stop!

  15.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Look at all those resources wasted guarding children with the hordes of cars that blast through SF. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just get all those parent’s SUV’s and drive their kids to work like normal people?

  16.  

    jd_x

    Helmet-wearing was not the cause of the accident so to focus on this is distracting from the real solution — changing our street infrastructure to better protect vulnerable road users and having more severe and hence meaningful punishment for motorists who screw up and hurt let alone kill someone — which if course is non-trivial. So it’s a complete abdication of responsibly for us to have people like you bringing helmet-wearing into this incident, especially when you don’t even mentiom the real solutions of infrastructure and enforcement which are at the root of the incident.

  17.  

    jd_x

    The laws aren’t there just to protect you since, if that was the only goal, there would be no cars allowed on any streets unless they were emergency vehicles. Thus, the laws are there to sacrifice safety for convenience and where we draw this line is very much up to debate. And when you further consider that this safety-convenience trade-off was considered primarily with motorists in mind and pedestrians secondary and bicyclists completely neglected, this further indicates that the laws are suspect when it comes to pedestrian and bicyclist safety let alone convenience.

  18.  

    Picky

    Yes, the law is hard to understand. That’s why neither the general public nor the police is equipped to interpret the law. It is up to the judicial system. When it comes to the law, I guess I am as dumb and you are and could be incorrect as well.

  19.  

    Picky

    That is very true. That’s why the police department usually does not enforce motorcycles or bicycles and put their focus on bigger vehicles. While that is very understandable, it is nice to see that once in a while they enforce laws that also do apply to them as well as pedestrians. It serves as a reminder that the laws are there to protect us, the pedestrians, as we cross the street. While I might not die from being hit by a bicycle, others have.

  20.  

    Flatlander

    That 62-year-old driver would almost certainly also be better off it he had been wearing a helmet. Clearly we should push for mandatory helmets while driving.

  21.  

    Picky

    I beg to differ. Many California Vehicle codes were implemented to keep pedestrians safe (CCVC 21954(b), CVC 21950 and CVC 21455). Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians should all be held accountable. However, on almost all collisions, the pedestrian is on the losing end. Don’t forget that a bicycle is a vehicle as well. And there has been cases of pedestrian fatality involving bicycle pedestrian collisions. More importantly, while everyone should obey the law, everyone should also use common sense.

  22.  

    Picky

    Maybe the rules are different where the video was filmed. In California, pedestrian right of way is covered by CCVC 21954(b), CVC 21950 and CVC 21455. The CCVC states that both parties, driver and pedestrian, should use caution. The video does not show the pedestrian’s safety was ever put in jeopardy. Both parties assessed the situation and decided it was safe to proceed. It is obvious that they both arrived to the conclusion that would not collide with each other. I am sure if the driver slowed down he would have collided with the pedestrian. Or if the pedestrian decided to speed up. However, the driver kept same speed, so did the pedestrian. With their speeds being constant, there was no way they would have collided.

  23.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    I see bus stops at 25th and Fulton but no “taxi stand,” unless OSL had set up something temporary for this purpose. If the SFMTA was shooing taxis from the bus stops, I’m not going to shed any tears for them.

  24.  

    Picky

    I am not sure if you are aware that laws can be changed and amended. But until that is done, it is what it is. Don’t like it, don’t get caught or move somewhere where the law if more to your liking.

  25.  

    Jimbo

    the case of Nils should also cause a strong push for helmet laws, as he would most likely be alive, like so many others, if he were wearing a helmet. this is why it became mandatory for motorcycles, and has been very effetive in decreasing deaths

  26.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Pontifikate – You can think whatever you want, and clearly do, but that’s not Vision Zero at all. Vision Zero is not about “vehicles” and is barely about enforcement. The whole point of Vision Zero is to use data (not anecdotes and only certain types of biased complaints) in order to change the built environment (not to rack up citations).

  27.  

    Jym Dyer

    Remember that scene in Ken Burns’ Civil War epic, body piled next to body as far as the eye could see? Verily, that’s what all the people nearly-hit by bikes look like on whatever sidewalk this epidemic is taking place on, except right next to it is a pristine and completely empty bike lane.

  28.  

    Susan

    Are they only banned from making turns onto Market, or driving on this stretch at all? Can I enter Market at 10th, then just happily drive up to 1st in my car because I didn’t turn onto Market from 8th???

  29.  

    roymeo

    It is according to PBB, haven’t seen the specific CVC line myself.

  30.  

    Dark Soul

    If this bill pass…The Danger to others will increase. What happen of a person makes a sudden move…dead or injured, The safety enforcement resources that expanded to make everyone safer. Fining Bike people making them learn lesson not break the rules. Not long ago(Person got injured because a biker refuse to follow the rule)

  31.  

    kceem

    I couldn’t agree more. I’ve complained many times about this behavior on Frederick between Clayton-Ashbury-Masonic and the SFPD has done nothing, even though there’s an elementary school right in the middle. You’re lucky if the right-turners even slow down, or if you make it across an intersection without the waiting car driving up to your shins.

  32.  

    danbrotherston

    Many places, its already a separate violation to enter a crosswalk while other vehicles are stopped at the same crosswalk. I don’t know about California or not.

  33.  

    Prinzrob

    Yeah, it’s a situation commonly referred to as an SSWS, or “Single Witness Suicide Swerve”, always highly suspicious. I like riding Palomares as well, but accessing it often feels like playing Russian Roulette.

    There are some folks interested in having a pseudo Sunday Streets on Niles Canyon, as a ramp up toward an effort to create a less stressful path that everyone could feel comfortable riding on. A coordination meeting on this very subject is set for this week.

  34.  

    Bruce

    The pedestrian killed at the Alemany Maze was reportedly walking on the freeway itself, not on the surface streets: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Woman-struck-and-killed-while-walking-on-I-280-in-6446557.php

  35.  

    the_greasybear

    It was almost 4 years ago. Good to know Wiener has been able to pressure Mission Station to do its job since then.

  36.  

    murphstahoe

    Doesn’t need to be a mechanical – there are plenty of rocks that tumble onto the roadway there, big enough not to want to bunny hop. I don’t recall there being a rumble strip, but that could be new.

    But.. the CHP says the bicyclist swerved – but presumably the CHP wasn’t there. So who told him the cyclist swerved? The only surviving witness – the driver. I use the word “swerve” to describe an actual change of direction – as in the rider basically turned left. If the cyclist moved 12 inches to the left to avoid debris, and was hit by the driver, the driver is at fault under current CVC for not giving 3 feet. But we’ll never know, will we.

    84 sucks, which is a real bummer given how excellent a road for cycling that Palomares Canyon road is, only accessible from that side by 84. I’ve gone to only riding that road in groups large enough to really control the roadway. When I do ride it, I do try to aggressively control the lane. That way I will only get run over by drivers who intentionally try to run me over, as opposed to ones who overestimate the ability of themselves to pass safely. It’s not a particularly long stretch, the pieces without sholders are short, cyclists can ride it at high speed for cyclists, and motorists are generally delayed by traffic anyway.

    RIP

  37.  

    Derek Lin

    It’s all common sense. The bike should slow down and watch for any potential crossing pedestrians and any motor vehicles or any other vehicles already at the other stop signs that have the right of way. The bike can go through only when all situations are cleared, otherwise the bike should wait. It’s wordy to put on paper, but in practice, this only takes a few seconds. This is what most cyclists do. There are times when cyclists misjudge, but as long as we are at very low speed to begin with, things should be manageable.

  38.  

    roymeo

    “I believe the law is the law.” – Picky
    “If neither party was attempting to occupy the same space at the same time how was the pedestrian right of way violated?” – Picky

    DOES NOT COMPUTE!
    DOES NOT COMPUTE!
    DOES NOT *SMOKE BILLOWS*

  39.  

    Prinzrob

    Sadly, a bicyclist was killed in a collision with a driver on Niles Canyon Road/Hwy 84 this past Friday: http://patch.com/california/livermore/fremont-bicyclist-killed-friday-night-crash-hwy-84-near-sunol-0

    The CHP says the bicyclist swerved from the shoulder into oncoming traffic for some reason, even crossing over a rumble strip median. This seems unlikely, but maybe feasible if the individual was descending at a fast pace and had some sort of mechanical issue with his bicycle. Regardless, I hope there will be a full investigation.

    This happened at the same location where a bike path has been proposed but not funded or built: https://bikeeastbay.org/nilescanyontrail

  40.  

    StrixNoctis .

    That sucks. I hope your leg & ankle healed without permanent damage.

    By chance, was the vehicle that the hit & runner drove a white mini van (or possibly a short/low SUV) with a tinted rear window (possibly also other tinted windows)? Back in October or November of last year (can’t remember exactly), an angry motorist in a vehicle of that description deliberately tried to hit me on Mission St, between Precita & Caesar Chavez blvd (the incident is what convinced me to get a camera for my bike).

  41.  

    StrixNoctis .

    I believe Valencia Street–at least from 22nd up to Market St. is a deliberately unenforced traffic area. Not only have I witnessed SFPD ignoring traffic violations on that street when they’re there and see the violations, but I also recall Stanley Roberts mention something about “unenforced traffic areas” in one of his PBB video segments that was about some traffic violations here in SF.

  42.  

    StrixNoctis .

    In that situation of a bicycle reaching an intersection with a car stopped at the left side of the bicycle, I agree with you, Nancy, that it’s unsafe for a bicycle to roll through without stopping–because there’s not only a risk of a cyclist not seeing a pedestrian crossing from the left side (including short people and pets), but there’s also the risk of the motor vehicle proceeding to make a right turn without signaling and without merging into the bike lane if there is one. A bicyclist shouldn’t pass on the right side of a vehicle, including a double-parked vehicle. I’m a cyclist, and I never do. I wait for the motor vehicle to go first.

    However, I don’t see the Idaho stop as dangerous if a cyclist isn’t passing on the right of a stopped vehicle (when there isn’t a vehicle, for example) and if the cyclist competently observes it’s safe before proceeding.

  43.  

    Anthony R

    +1

  44.  

    roymeo

    So as long as I menace you enough, we’re good. It shows 1, likely 2 vehicles violating the pedestrian’s right of way.

  45.  

    roymeo

    I see no mention of medians in the CVC. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c5/21950

    I’m talking letter of the law: don’t do this if you’re driving while black and there’s an officer tailing you for the past 3 blocks looking for any (legally legitimate) excuse to pull you over.

  46.  

    Mountain Viewer

    That’s a great video showing that in situations where one has to yield one has to stop.

    BTW: to be fair, the first part of the video seems to be about convenience (avoiding loss of energy/momentum)

  47.  

    Mountain Viewer

    Are you referring to the car on the other side of the median? (that particular crosswalk has a median island). My understanding is that when there is a median island, the right of way rules apply only to the side of the crosswalk a pedestrian is on (or about to step on).

  48.  

    roymeo

    I repeat: ” Never seen any level of pedestrian right-of-way sting or enforcement uphold ‘as the law reads’.” I’ve seen all the stings on People Behaving Badly, but I’m talking full letter of the law. Regular legal crosswalks, not just marked crosswalks. Cars turning right when a pedestrian is JUST ABOUT to step up onto the sidewalk on the far side but not quite there.

  49.  

    roymeo

    Yeah, but no. I’m talking going after the grey car heading right-to-left as well as the silver SUV going left-to-right. Full letter of the law, not just grabbing the easy car blasting past a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk.

  50.  

    murphstahoe

    I believe the law is whatever a bunch of old white guys decided it should be at some time in the distant past. Whether or not they had a clue is very much up for debate.