Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Sorry, I don’t block traffic. If I do break a rule like rolling through a stop sign, it’s only when absolutely nobody else is affected. I think there’s where we differ—you don’t seem to mind affecting other people with your rule-breaking, and you even talk like you feel entitled to do so.



    85% of automobiles come to a complete stop. i agree theres needs to be more enforcement of the 15%.



    So no one should obey any laws until all laws are obeyed… got it.



    “just like” = here comes a false equivalency.

    You said you want to park in the bike lane for the same reason cars merge to turn right. I pointed out the difference, so will you do your double-parking in the car lane now?



    No, I think that every road user breaks the law from time to time when they feel justified. You and I don’t do it because everyone else does it but rather because we all sometimes feel justified in breaking the law for our own reasons.



    So you apparently think that seeing other drivers pull stupid shit entitles you to do the same? GTFO



    Wow, how juvenile are you?



    Just as soon as you obey all the laws.



    Illegal? Yes, just like bikes not stopping at stop signs and pedestrians who jaywalk.

    Less safe? A stopped car cannot harm you. It’s what you do about it that can.



    Cars merging into the bike lane to turn right is safer than them turning across the bike lane.

    Cars parking in the bike lane is illegal and less safe — will you stop doing that?



    The law is don’t park in the bike lane — will you stop doing that?





    The issue was law breaking. If you don’t like the laws then get them changed.


    Frank Kotter

    which inhibits the flow of traffic how?



    The reality can be changed when it’s detrimental. And there is a pretty strong parents’ movement in SF to get kids walking and biking again. They’ve organized “walking busses” and bike groups to to do that.

    When my kids were in SFUSD schools, there was a rule that kids weren’t allowed to posses bikes on school property. That’s been changed because of those parents and more can be done.

    The physical reality is that an entire school’s worth of kids can’t be dropped off all at the same time in the same place. An immediate solution is for parents who haven’t moved away from cars to park a block or two away and walk with their kids to the door rather than triple parking and having their kids run across traffic.

    Having a safe place at schools to store trailers, bike seats, and children’s bicycles is another good step.

    You’ve probably also been noticing more parents carting their kids around on cargo bikes, often with electric assist. These bikes, usually with stretched back racks to carry several kids, or large buckets in front, give parents the tool they need to avoid purchasing that first car and getting trapped in theeconomically destructive trap of car ownership.

    We’re in the midst of a sea change in how Americans live in cities and car ownership is going away. An important step is to give parents the tools they need to get their kids around without one.


    Gary van der Merwe

    I would if the park stretches from where I am to where I want to go, but 99.99% of the time, it does not.



    It’s hard to blow through stop signs while riding muni.



    But you don’t have to “swerve”. That implies that you don’t really stop and look before pulling out, but rather impatiently and unreasonably expect to continue your journey without any delay. That is what I am saying causes the danger.

    The double-parked car should not be there, but the reality is that it is and always will be. Pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to blow through stops and drivers are going to double park.

    That’s life, so deal with life SAFELY. Don’t swerve. Stop, look and pull out only when safe. And if you cannot do that safely then maybe you should not be on the road at all – passing obstructions is a fundamental road skill.



    What do you mean by “61% of traffic”? Do you mean 61% of vehicles? That counts a bike as the same as, say, a shuttle bus with 40 passengers?

    Does “traffic” include pedestrians, as I suspect that is the main form of moving about on Valencia?

    And of course there are no Muni buses on Valencia any more. So are you omitting from the count all the buses that run parallel to Valencia a block away, of necessity?

    Oh, and how do you measure all the vehicular traffic that is displaced to Guerrero or South Van Ness because of congestion on Valencia caused partly by all those bikes?



    The problem is, when people double park in the bike lane, people in the bike lane need to swerve to miss the cars putting themselves (and everyone else at risk. Not like the cars slow down and let you in because they see your lane is obstructed. We are not quite at peak selfishness, but we are well on the way. No one wants to be inconvenienced but everyone is happy to inconvenience others if it makes there life easier.



    I wasn’t aware that either of the recent cycling deaths were due to a double parked car. In fact I know for a fact that they were not.



    I never said it was not important. I said it was a technical detail. I believe the city has experts on this stuff. I’m talking big picture here, and about how to get the bikes to somewhere safer than Valencia.



    I never said that double parking is OK. It isn’t, in much the same way as pedestrians jaywalk and cyclists blow through stop signs. We all break the law sometimes, and presumably because we feel it is justified.

    And yes, impatience causes accidents whoever is doing it. But illegal acts and impatience are what we all have to deal with on a daily basis/ It is HOW you deal with it that affects your level of risk.



    Everyone behaves badly on the roads in this city. You think I don’t notice the behavior of other drivers, cab drivers, truck drivers, cyclists, everyone. This is a tough city to get around.

    But again, I dispute that this particular behavior is dangerous. Assuming you see the vehicle ahead you are free to stop, pass CAREFULLY or dismount. If you are impatient and choose to take a risk, that is on your head.

    I see that Trump has replaced Hitler in your personal instances of Godwin’s Law.



    I don’t do it very often and no more than, say, I suspect you blow through stop signs or ride on the side-walk.



    For the same reason that cars are supposed to merge into the bike lane when turning right.



    Elsewhere in the thread I said that I sometimes walk out into the bike lane or road to escape the crowds on Valencia.

    But only when it is safe to do so, as my continued presence here indicates.



    I already said that double parking was inconvenient for other road users. And of course it’s illegal as are many other things that all roads users do from time to time, including cyclists.

    The thought process of a car driver briefly stopping in a bike lane is similar to the thought process of a bike blowing a stop sign – in both cases a justification is made to break the law because the operator deems it preferable to the alternatives.

    My point was more that it doesn’t have to be dangerous as suggested. That’s all down to how you choose to respond to the obstruction.



    Or just ride your bicycle in the park. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Just keep encouraging the kiddies to ride on busy streets so the ambulance chasers get their share.


    alberto rossi

    So there have been almost no pedestrian improvements besides painting pictures of bulbouts here and there and fatalities are actually up since Vision Zero started. Yet we’re handing out awards? Maybe it’s really a participation trophy?



    Oh I agree, but kids being driven to school is a reality in San Francisco, and many will travel more than a couple of blocks because of the way school assignment works in SF (not to mention the volume of private schools).

    We do need to do a better job at providing more space for safe loading in front of schools to help prevent such accidents though.



    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.