Skip to content

Recent Comments



    If PD does this kind of enforcement regularly, then 18 months without a ticket would be difficult for one whose main employment is driving. You take the traffic school once, then you don’t have that option. The points rack up, the license gets suspended and find yourself out of work, or risk driving with the prospect of arrest at the next traffic stop.

    Given that ride share popularity is only increasing, the city should be swapping out more parking spaces for loading zones. I am not arguing to let anyone off, but simply focusing on enforcement without considering the full picture is stupid.

    From what I’ve read, the TNCs are quite happy to argue that they don’t have a stake in the issue. If the city could pass a local ordinance to cite passengers as well – specially for the pick-up location which they can control, that would be one way of making the TNCs sit up and take notice.

    The driver is definitely the main culprit, but passengers need to share part of the blame.



    Interesting, the dynamics of pricing are being worked out as they are in their infancy. You can correlate the Uber/Taxi as transit issue to any HOV lane. Current policy is to reward carpooling which includes paying someone to drive. We all know this doesn’t take cars off the road. I believe correct road pricing should eliminate any special incentive to carpool as the cost savings alone should be the only incentive to ride share. Hopefully London will eliminate any multi passenger or uber/taxi incentive on their pricing. This would shift the demand to larger passenger vehicles during peak times.



    I suspect that in SF, the poor tend not to own cars at all…



    Interestingly, London apparently exempts Uber from paying its congestion toll, on the grounds that it is a form of transit. Apparently that’s causing problems now, because it accounts for so much of the traffic in the center.


    Chris J.

    Reiskin’s logic avoids the question:

    “The risk of installing non-approved street designs, whether or not they’re considered safe informally, is that the city may be opened up to lawsuits…”

    At issue is why they’re so promptly removing them over using resources to make streets safer.


    Chris J.

    I’m so happy to hear that there are bus drivers that are also cyclists. Thank you for doing both!


    Chris J.

    upon encountering an obstruction you have three main alternatives:

    This shows your ignorance about cycling. The obvious alternative and one you didn’t list is to bicycle around the obstacle safely (e.g. slowing, glancing back, etc). I can’t remember ever having to do any of the three options you list, and I’ve ridden nearly every day for years.



    OK, if your ambitions are nothing more than one small part of the Bay Area then I wills top worrying.

    Could it ever change again? Maybe? But in 100 years time, we’ll still have 90% of Americans driving around in cars. They might be electric and self-driving, but this country is too big for bikes and buses to ever be anything other than marginal.



    Three of us have different numbers so clearly none of them are definitive. But the last full census is 2010.

    Doesn’t matter to my point anyway, whether non-cyclists are 95% or 97%.



    No, intent is crucial in any criminal case. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter, for instance. We forgive accidents much more readily than the intentional infliction of harm


    Jym Dyer

    @Brian Keith – This was once my daily commute, I had to do that many times. I also had a pretty constant hacking cough, it’s as if I’d taken up smoking.


    Jym Dyer

    @SF Guest – Sounds like another prefab sob story.



    It’s growing in SF. We’re talking about SF; stop trying to talk nationally.

    Everything new starts from a small base. Here’s a thought you can try to hold in your head: cars once numbering less than bikes! Woah! Isn’t that weird? And now there are millions upon millions. Could that ever change again? Hmmmmm …



    “Until that is resolved, the 2010 is the only definitive number”

    I hope whatever you do in your day job (if you have time for a day job given how much you post just on this website) that you aren’t in charge of any policy. This statement is absurd. So nobody can do anything with any data except census data? So government should only make changes every 10 years? Are you really being that obtuse?

    And silly, silly Rich: you don’t get to decide what the definitive number is.



    Intent has nothing to do with it. And what makes you so sure you know the intent of Critical Mass bicyclists? Or the intent of motorists double-parking in the bike lane?


    SF Guest

    I saw Stanley Roberts’ follow-up edition asking rideshare drivers why they let riders off in a no-stop zone and several of them claimed they had no control over riders getting out of their vehicle since they simply get out with or without permission of the driver. That didn’t stop SFPD from issuing citations, but as Stanley Roberts pointed out none of the riders who illegally disembarked were cited.

    There probably are legitimate cases where a rider ignored the driver and disembarked without their permission, but SFPD is holding the driver totally responsible. I doubt any Judge would side with the driver as well.


    Jym Dyer

    @farazs – We are not limited by MUTCD’s hidebound process. This is the group that rubber-stamped the useless “Share the Road” signs but dragged their feet for a decade over “Bicycles May Use Full Lane.”

    NACTO has sprinted ahead with proven designs for protected bike lanes, and we can use those.


    Jym Dyer

    @SF Guest – A solid 2/3rds majority put pedestrian, bicycle, and transit priority into the city charter. Two billionaire-financed attempts to reverse this went down by 2/3rds majorities since then. It would be great if we were to actually follow through on what we’ve democratically voted for 3 times already.


    Alameda Polydicks

    i hope bike walk alameda succeeds because mcguire sure looks like he could use some more time on a bike


    Jym Dyer

    @mx – Critical Mass has far less impact on pedestrians than everyday motoring does, it’s just different. I know of exactly one emergency room visit in 24 years (there are perhaps more), compared to 6 a day from normal car-dominant traffic.

    When rides were routinely in the thousands, some of us took to shepherding pedestrians across the street, which was actually a fun experience.


    Jym Dyer

    @Stuart – This has been done. The effort was called the Valencia Insurrection Against Bike Lane Encroachment (V.I.A.B.L.E.), paired with a Helpful Upper Market Bike Lane Enforcement (H.U.M.B.L.E.) effort.

    It would be great if our activist community would launch such efforts again, but what we really need is infrastructure rather than enforcement.


    Jym Dyer

    @mx – Dismissing data because of sampling is a move recently championed by a Presidential candidate who is in second place in opinion polls. Willful ignorance is clearly a popular substitute for accuracy and intellect.


    Jym Dyer

    @Stuart – I’m a daily bike commuter, but not according to the Census. Census data presents only the part of an intermodal journey that covers the most miles. One would typically use a bike for the first mile/last mile connections on BART or Caltrain, but the Census would mark this down as a rail commute. Even when most of the miles traveled within city limits would be on bike!

    Both these systems carry thousands of San Francisco bike commuters and have had to expand to accommodate the demand. But we’re not included in the Census data.


    Jym Dyer

    @frazas – You forgot to admit defeat. 😉 It’s always Groundhog Day here, not only will he refuse to address them, all will be forgotten so as to not burden the next volley of 100 comments.


    Jym Dyer

    @bike_engineer – This is a sweeping assumption. There are in fact SFMTrA installations at sites slated for improvements by the city, done quite professionally.

    Also, the hidebound MUTCD is not the gold standard for safety, it’s more the gold standard for inaction (and vehicular cyclist dogma). We are, thankfully, no longer bound by this manual. NACTO lets us move forward, to where Europe managed to get to in the 20th Century.


    Jym Dyer

    @jd_x – Years ago, before the SFMTA existed, a spokesperson for the DPT expressed concern that deploying PCOs to enforce violations of double-parking, sidewalk- and crosswalk-parking, etc. would change motorist behavior and then the PCOs wouldn’t have anything to ticket them for. Brilliant thinking, that!


    Jym Dyer

    @SF Guest – As a daily Market Street commuter I find that the hailing app drivers are willfully ignorant of the law. Or know when to launch into the “I need to feed my family” sob story whenever they endangered someone else’s family with their actions.


    Jym Dyer

    @Stuart – In his car, behind the keyboard, whichever. One hopes it’s not both at once, but given the hundreds of write-only/absorb-nothing comments he posts here, one has to suspect multi-tasking.


    City Resident



    Jym Dyer

    @neroden – Yes, the streetcars and rails are all accounted for in one budget, whereas rolling stock and roads are accounted for in two budgets. Thus we get years and years of bogus comparisons that make buses seem cheaper.

    The costs inflicted by pollution are externalized for both modes, and thus generally ignored. But the greater efficiency of rail means that these, too, are lower than they are with buses.

    (The comparisons within San Francisco are suboptimal, though, since we are currently saddled with heavy trains on light rail lines. One hopes that the new fleet will bring us up to the cutting edge of the 20th Century, maybe even the 21st.)


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – You basically never need to reroute a streetcar line, because development follows it. Development is less likely to follow bus routes precisely because they’re more “flexible.”

    While the up-front capital costs of installing rail are higher, the ongoing maintenance is a fraction of what it costs to maintain roads.


    Jym Dyer

    @SF Guest – I’m not sure what you’re talking about. There is a myth, used for political gain, that the earthquake and subsequent demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway hurt Chinatown businesses. The reality is that these businesses weathered a recession along with every other business in the city at the time.


    Jym Dyer

    @dawdler – I agree that public transit could be improved with responsive scheduling, etc. My problem with most of the discourse around this technology is that it has so far been very directed at individualized single-occupant convenience, and it always gets brought up as an imminent utopian solution that will obviate fixing anything else (e.g. public transit).


    Jym Dyer

    @Flatlander – It’s always Groundhog Day when drive-by commenters share their “wisdom” with us.


    Jym Dyer

    @neroden – The other half of the gibberish is leaving out the higher, and more-heavily-subsidized costs inflicted by the automobiles that public transit replaces.


    Jym Dyer

    @PaleoBruce – One would think that a frequent drive-by commenter like @JImbo would have a working knowledge of the rudiments of motoring subsidy, it has been pointed out in drect replies to him often enough. Then again, one of the key works in the field had the title, Automobile Dependence and Denial, so it should be no surprise that we’re seeing the denial.

    A coauthor of that work, Stanley Hart, analyzed the costs inflicted by motorists on public services: 40% of the police budget, 14% of the fire budget, and 16% of EMS (these are the cost of collisions, not the additional impact of pollution). Since then, we have started sending fire engines out with ambulances, so costs are higher.

    Plus, of course, half of the 2008 Prop A costs, and of the decades of debt service, since that was a bond measure.


    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – I am referring to this stretch of Market.



    Nonsense. As stated Market Street has been massively re-engineered like no other street in the city. If you don’t believe me, try driving along it.



    But the alleged “subsidy” isn’t going to drivers, so it’s misleading to phrase it that way. It goes to those who need treatment, which includes drivers of course, but also many non-drivers as well.



    Depends on the street and how much oncoming traffic there is. Point being that a car or truck needs a lot of width to pass a blocking vehicle, and at least in the example I cited, that was only possible by moving into the bike lane



    Except of course that just about everyone here breaks laws as well. The specific laws may vary but the principle of law-breaking is endemic, and that includes cyclists and even pedestrians (jaywalking).

    And yes, they’re all entitled to fight those tickets, regardless of guilt. That’s your constitutional right.

    People in glass houses, and all . .


    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – There is nothing particularly “micromanaged” about this stretch of Market, so no “irony” is involved. It’s a simple straight stretch with a wide field of vision, precisely the opposite of “calming.”


    City Resident

    Yes. We all are (in the form of Medicare, Medi-Cal, Healthy SF, Healthy Kids, state and federal subsidies to hospitals for providing emergency care to the indigent, etc.).


    jason c

    The scientific data is not unavailable, Civil Engineers constantly do infrastructure studies (For ex.


    Drew Levitt

    In my experience, it is almost always feasible for traffic to pass double parked vehicles on the left – irrespective of whether they’re parked adjacent to (or in) a bike lane.


    jason c

    There’s a ton of regulation regarding the interstate system, The Interstate was meant to serve a ton of secondary military purposes (such as serving as potential land fortifications and emergency landing areas for aircraft) in addition to its economic role as a freeway. I’m fairly certain they won’t be able to build in anyway that could interfere with one of these roles.

    Second of all the I-5 avoids the downtown area’s of several important Central Valley cities such as Fresno and Bakersfield. Many travelers who will ride the train won’t have their vehicles, and will want to be as close to the major economic areas of their destinations, as possible.

    Finally, the corridor they’re building along already has been flattened and utilized for existing cargo rail, they’re literally taking this time to lay the rail and build a handful of bridges and stations (since Bakersfield and Fresno won’t allow improvements to be made to existing stations), which they’d have to do even if the built along/on/near the I-5.



    Rick wasn’t commenting on the right of a cyclist to use a busy, fast 6-lane highway but rather the prudence of it.



    Gee, I took that as “advice” to you in particular, not some population in general. If you, RichLL, obeyed traffic laws you would not have to “engage in a ridiculous amount of effort to get off”. You sort of admitted to being in violation of the laws, that sort of means you are wrong, that sort of means you have no platform to comment on others behavior, that sort of means you need to get off your high horse about others (cyclists), sort of….


    Corvus Corax

    Why is it so dangerous? Does it run alongside a cliff? Are there bears waiting to pounce on some hapless cyclist? Or could it possibly be because so many drivers think they own it, that cyclists should think themselves lucky that they are allowed on any street?



    Well, I guess the truck could have parked sufficiently far to the right to prevent traffic passing via the bike lane. But then traffic would have backed up for blocks.

    So the driver is damned either way, right?