Skip to content

Recent Comments



    A word like “daylighting” is jargon that urban planners use that can sound offputting to people who aren’t in the business. I am a railroad fan, and to me “daylighting” means when a railroad removes the top of a tunnel and turns it into a cut.



    Hint: How many bike or pedestrian commercials do you see on KPIX?



    And even though the mother and her child had the right-of-way, as per the news report. Might not the SFPD be liable if this motorist were to maim again en route to her next destination? It also seems incredible that someone can drive again within hours of critically injuring a child.



    What’s really needed are satellite offices wherever there is a critical mass of employees – move jobs where people live not thousands or tens of thousands of people back and forth every day to sit in front of a screen.



    A bulb out reduces the distance a person must walk to cross the street and forces people to drive slower around the corner by forcing a smaller then radius. Day lighting is likely less expensive, but allows a larger turn radius so in theory one could drive around the corner faster.

    Bulb out still allows parking, so it significantly reduces visibility because cars parked 1m further towards the center of the street makes for horrible visibility.



    86 years old — and still allowed to drive? WTF?!



    Is daylighting just a poor man’s version of a bulb-out?


    Andy Chow

    Some believe that the affluent should be exposed to the rest of the community by riding on the same transit vehicle. I am not sure where this idea comes from, but I think it may be based on the notion that if they’re exposed more, they will be more likely to sympathize with the rest of the population and support policies that can lift them up. Regardless, class distinction is not illegal but very typical. Airlines and Amtrak offer first and business classes for customers who want better amenities even though the travel time is essentially the same as those in coach. Some transit agencies use motorcoaches with better seats for express, commuter oriented routes that charge premium fares.

    Despite the noble goal, if upscale transit does not exist, many affluent commuters may choose to drive which tend to have a larger negative impacts on the community. Even though San Francisco Muni does not nor plans to operate motorcoaches, it would rather be promoting inequality if Muni were to spend extra money to buy better buses to be more competitively serve high income riders.



    That’s a separate incident and with no deaths, although still outrageous. The SFPD have also failed to do a real investigation of the cyclist who was killed at 14th and Folsom from what I’ve read as well. Still a lot of work to be done on Vision Zero.

    Perhaps a coincidence but the Richmond Station is the only one meeting their vision zero targets and Mar is a strong supporter of vision zero. Did they put pressure on the DA in a way that hasn’t occurred in other districts?



    Per the interwebs, the 86 year old who ran over the family at Stonestown was allowed to drive her car home.



    That officer is also failing to turn right from as close to the right curb as is practicable, another vehicle code violation.



    Glad to hear that they aren’t writing it off as “a tragic accident” and are charging the driver who killed Alfred Yee and recognizing the driver’s negligence in failing to yield to a pedestrian. I don’t think the driver needs prison time, per say, but the community service and hopefully a license suspension would be good place to start.


    Chairman Meow

    Shoddy reporting from a shoddy news source. No thinking person “watches” the news.



    Just look at the “SFPD driver approaches a turn” photo in this very article. How is SFPD supposed to concentrate enforcement on “Focus on the FIve” if they’re breaking those laws themselves? The photo clearly shows an SFPD vehicle failing to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk.


    Marvin Papas

    The correlation of drivers breaking the law is higher given there is more of them.

    I see more rule violations from cyclists -like blowing stop-signs more often given the much smaller sample size than motorists.

    Can you dig it Jym with a y?



    Yep..3 whole syllables? Shesh, this ain’t Shakespeare. Let’s use simple words we can all understand.



    That must have been one bad collision to reverse gravity like that.



    If visibility is going to work both ways, it’s time to start painting vehicles in neon colors and applying lots of reflective striping as well as improving street lighting generally.



    A: Monopoly



    I think it’s safe to say that slapping stickers on either cars or cyclists who do things that are dangerous or unsafe would not end well.



    I find the suggestion that “visibility is a two way street”, confusing at best. Yes, pedestrians should look for cars, that’s ALSO easier when sight lines are improved.



    80 intersections or 80 parking spaces? I think it’s 80 parking spaces, with 8 parking spaces per intersection, which would make about 10 intersections.



    The woman complaining about SFPD officer’s poor driving is spot on. We’d have safer streets if SFPD wasn’t allowed to have cars, particularly when you consider that they rarely use them to enforce traffic laws.


    Jym Dyer

    This article is about motorists breaking the law. So by that logic, I presume you’ve lost all sympathy for the motoring cause.

    I have to wonder why you haven’t already lost all sympathy for the motoring cause due to their speeding. Surely your logic wouldn’t be inconsistent, after all.


    Jym Dyer

    Are you as concerned with motorists who alienate people with their aggressive-aggressive act of parking in the bike lane?


    Jym Dyer

    I have a supply of “I Park in The Bike Lane” vinyl magnets. Unfortunately, they don’t work too well on modern cars, which are made of plastic. They do work on police cars and Ted & Al’s trucks — er, or so I’ve heard.

    Stickers are harsh and no doubt illegal. Post-It technology, maybe?


    Jym Dyer

    @Dave Moore – “The truth is almost certainly in between.” Sure, if we’re talking about in between idiots and jerks. But it’s also quite possible that a good number of them are both.


    Thomas Rogers

    Calling daylighting a “fancy word” sums it up pretty well.



    No doubt in my mind.

    A lot of EU cities seem to have a better grasp on it… and in some ways without much infra, I suppose.



    It’s almost impossible to even get on the 30X after Fillmore Street. It’s so packed most of the time that the bus doesn’t even stop until Van Ness, when someone usually gets off.


    Marvin Papas

    I lived in London where there are even more bikers than SF.

    Trust me the respect for the rules of the road exhibited by cyclists was much MUCH higher and the flow of traffic was better without so much animosity.

    I think the issue in CA stems from pedestrians having the right of way and tons of jay-walking that spills over to cyclists.

    In places like London and NYC if you J-walk or cross against a stop or a light you are really at risk of getting hit.



    The point I’m hoping to make is that there are basically no rules, and those that exist differ fairly largely from city to city, and condition to condition. Part of that (arguably most) is due to the lack of infrastructure—lights, right of way, etc.—and as a result few know exactly how to behave in specific conditions, etc.

    Granted there will always be people who break the law because they’re lazy, or asinine, but I think it’d be harder break them “accidentally” if there was some underlying consideration or consistency in place.


    Marvin Papas

    Your argument would carry more weight and have more sympathy if so many cyclists observed the same laws and had more respect for the rules.

    Clearly all cyclists are not to blame, I just see quite a few who all too often could give a shit about the rules of the road, that’s all.



    This has zero to do with cars parking, obstructing or driving in designated bike lanes. And because you’ve seen cyclists roll through, or even blow through a stop sign, doesn’t mean that everyone does.

    Creating adequate infrastructure is the first step to addressing all sides of the issue. The behavior shown above is no good for anyone.



    I don’t see that as passive aggressive at all, and would do quite a bit for the “general cause” as I think it directly notifies a driver that they’re illegally parked, and that people (albeit cyclists) are watching. I can only assume that it would be quite effective in keeping people out of bike lanes (helping cyclists AND people who drive [not get tickets for dumb daft behavior]).

    This has nothing to do with alienating people that drive—or anyone else—in any single way whatsoever.



    As you may know, the PUC is currently under investigation for the kind of passes it was handing out to corporations like PG&E. During the same time period, no less, in which the PUC created the “TNC” category for Uber and its like. There have already been allegations of backchannel communications between the PUC and Uber during the decisionmaking process. I suppose we’ll see if the investigation turns anything up.



    I think there are no parking signs all along the bike lane blocks. Getting red painted curbs for the entire block wouldn’t hurt.



    I think if hotels operated under the same regulatory & jurisdictional regime as airports, you’d see them demand a cut as well.



    Sure, but why should SFO deserve a cut? Perhaps the Marriott would like a cut from every taxi ride that starts/ends at their hotel, but they sure as heck aren’t going to get one either.

    I do think it’s reasonable for SFO to set rules about transportation services. Nobody wants random drivers trying to solicit passengers in the baggage claim and there’s value in requiring pickups/dropoffs to use designated curbs and concourses instead of everyone crowding the terminal all willy-nilly. That’s very different from imposing a $3.80 tax on every car or taxi coming in or out.



    Somewhere in between, sure, but I don’t actually think that’s the case. My belief is that your average driver never even has the though occur to them, that they’re endangering people. It just never even crosses their mind.


    Aaron Bialick



    I think the idea is that if you’re in the business of making money off selling your transportation services to SFO’s customers on SFO’s property, then SFO wants a cut.



    Hey, if yesterday’s Caltrain suicide at the San Antonio station makes the headlines, then let’s be fair and also include the BART suicide a few hours earlier at the Civic Center station.



    On the man who was critically injured on Gough, let’s not forget that the current narrative most likely comes from the motorist and police that interviewed her rather than the person who was riding their bike. Just remember this video when thinking about a possible scenario for how this crash unfolded:



    I actually think it more rationally goes like this, “I’ve always been able to pull over to the side of the road for a few minutes, what’s the big deal about it here?” and secondarily, there’s the lack of social taboo. Just reading the comments about people on bikes running stop signs or riding on sidewalks shows how much of a cultural taboo exists around that activity, even though it’s not the law in other jurisdictions. The motoring industry created a word along with a legal structure to prevent people from walking across the street midblock, an activity that’s been done for millennium, and have made it successfully taboo as well as against the law. It’s as if we need to make blocking bike lanes against cultural norms (just like running stop signs) before it will stop being a regular activity.



    SFPD Steps Up Patrols (SF Weekly) currently links to SPUR.



    Mill Valley recommends reduced speed limit to 10 mph on multi-use path around the entrance from Sycamore Lane and recommends “a robust enforcement program”


    Dave Moore

    I think this characterization is where the conflict is. It’s not like these drivers are saying to themselves “even though I know a cyclist will definitely die I will park here to save myself time”.

    You see the tradeoff as “minimal convenience” vs “lives of cyclists”. They see it as great inconvenience (having to hunt for scarse parking & walk) vs minimal inconvenience to cyclists (having to go around).

    The truth is almost certainly in between. It’s more like a moderate inconvenience to drivers vs a fairly significant risk to cyclists. That ought to be enough to make people not do it.



    I’ve been pretty amazed at the current and impending bike infrastructure in the parts of western Oakland I’ve been to the past several months. Peralta north of Grand is a crappy industrial street like Amador+Cargo Way…or at least it was before it got scrape and paved this past week and marked with what threatens to be bike lanes on each side.



    Yea but it’s clear by now SFPD and SFMTA don’t care about ticketing for blocked bike lanes. All one has to do is look at the blocked bike lanes (think Howard or Folsom, literally all day every day). So, I don’t see how Oak will ever change. You can sit on Folsom or Oak and watch SFPD vehicles drive right past cars parked in the bike lane. Not only are tickets not given, but contrary to what “mx” said, SFPD doesn’t even tell those vehicles to move. Oh well.