Skip to content

Recent Comments


    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?



    Immaterial to the point being made, unless circumstances for cyclists have somehow magically changed in the last few years, which I happen to know for a fact that the have not.



    As previously discussed, upon encountering an obstruction you have three main alternatives:

    1) Stop and wait
    2) Dismount and walk around
    3) Riskily swerve into traffic without looking

    Ask me how much sympathy you deserve if you take (3)



    mx, is that the advice you give to cyclists who blow through stop signs and lights?

    Didn’t think so.



    OK, so your big idea is to remove 96% of traffic so that you don’t have to worry about a 1/100,000 chance of being involved in an accident?

    Do you believe that you have the votes for that? If not, what is your back-up plan for convincing the silent majority of non-cyclists to be massively inconvenienced?



    The official position of the TNCs is that they expect their drivers to follow all laws, and if you report any of their drivers for violating traffic laws they are shocked, shocked to discover that traffic violations are taking place! Safety is very important to them!

    Funding a large-scale ticket contesting campaign that would be very likely to be noticed and then tracked back to them would be a PR mess, and have no real upside for them.



    But apparently not enough to understand that any situation where a bike and car traffic are forced to merge are fundamentally similar to a cyclist in practice. Both involving merging with moving cars, driven by people who may or may not pay attention to the presence of cyclists and who will come out a lot better in any collision, regardless of who is merging into whose lane.

    Either way, you are dealing with moving vehicles. Unless of course you follow one of the RichLL-approved™ methods, like stopping before the choke point and waiting however long it takes for the obstruction to clear, or getting off your bike, finding the nearest sidewalk, walking around, getting back on, and then continuing.

    You’ll probably say that from a legal point of view or a liability perspective they are totally different, but it turns out that unlike armchair cycling experts online, actual cyclists are primarily concerned with not being seriously injured or killed.


    Drew Levitt

    That certainly sounds like an unfortunate circumstance. But it also sounds like a fairly unlikely one: a vehicle double parked close to the edge of the bike lane would not leave enough room for many vehicles to squeeze between the parked cars and the double-parked vehicle. (The average car is more than six feet wide; the average urban bike lane is not more than six feet wide; that’s either no room at all or a veeeery tight fit!)

    On the (sadly rare) occasions when I’ve observed a vehicle double parked in a car lane adjacent to a bike lane, I’ve seen people in cars making their way tentatively to the left of the vehicle, and people on bikes making their way tentatively to the right of the vehicle.

    I think we’d both agree that double parking creates problems (of safety and of convenience/comfort) for all road users. Especially as Uber/Lyft and online shopping continue to grow in popularity (buying things online = more freight deliveries), we need to think about a comprehensive approach to loading and unloading in cities. That sounds like a win/win – but then again, it might involve converting some parking spaces into loading spaces…! (cue angry protests)



    Fair enough, different types of vehicles including buses, streetcars and bikes. Though data says that 96% of the accidents are caused by drivers of cars and trucks.



    Maybe you should try obeying the traffic laws and then you won’t have to go to a ridiculous amount of effort at all.



    San Francisco residents paid for the construction of the new trauma center, Prop A in 2008, $900 million. And half of its use is to serve people injured by traffic accidents. Wow.


    SF Guest

    I suggest you use the term “As an ex-cyclist . . .” next time.


    SF Guest

    If I recall correctly blocking a traffic lane citation is a moving violation. It’s been to my very limited experience moving violations are very tough to challenge in court without solid evidence because basically it’s the driver’s word against the citing officer, and the Judge will always take the side of the officer over the citation issuee.

    Many citation issuees opt to take traffic school knowing they have little chance at winning a contested citation; however, there are those willing to take a chance to protest it with the officer present knowing if the officer no shows the citation is automatically dismissed.



    You do not speak for an entire city. It could be an intermediary stop for a second BART tube, for instance



    I fight every ticket and generally score above 50%. I will engage in a ridiculous amount of effort to get off. Often the officer doesn’t show up at court which is an easy win.



    I wonder if operators offer legal representation to drivers. If they were to bank-roll a legal push-back, contesting every ticket, the traffic courts would grind to a crawl. The operate smoothly only because very few people contest their citations.

    On the flip-side, they want to have as little as possible to do with the drivers – to enforce the contractor vs. employee distinction.



    Alameda doesn’t want Bart. The suburbs do.



    I used to ride a bike. I don’t any more. But I rode a bike enough to know that things that move hurt me more than things that don’t move.



    > As a cyclist

    “you won’t ever see me on a bike”
    – RichLL

    Maybe you meant to say, “As someone who sometimes imagines what urban cycling might be like while I sit in my car”.



    waving his arms, talking on his phone and no helmet? I may have seen him. LOL



    Yeah, I saw a guy today riding a bike on Divis with “no hands”. In fact he was waving them in the air.

    I held back behind him just to keep him protected and, fortunately he turned right. But I’m guessing his life expectancy isn’t high.



    Driving those “vehicle friendly arteries” I often wonder to myself: why is there a bicyclist on here? It’s so dangerous! But, who knows.


    Corvus Corax

    VisionZero has a webpage comparing the citations of the first quarters of 2015 and 2016 by Supervisorial District. It is a sad irony that in almost all districts the number of citations actually decreased. So much for VisionZero.



    Market, Divis, Geary and Masonic are obviously vehicle-friendly arterial routes, and of course the city has to have some of those. The better question is why there are cyclists on any of them (Market aside, where they have massive infrastructural support, but still never enough, evidently)?

    In a city that truly was 100% safe and accident free, would any business get done? Put another way, what is an acceptable casualty rate for an economically successful city that can afford that billion?



    Uhmmm…how about adding transit to that solution? Without a robust transit investment, Alameda Landing is just another car-centric, suburban strip mall and low-rise tract housing development.

    Had BART invested its energy in building a new line to include Alameda (instead of its car-dependent commuter rail station extensions), the Alameda Landing development could have bee constructed with greater density (and height) next to mass transit. Alameda Island could also benefit from a light rail system that connects its major commercial centers with downtown Oakland and other BART stations.



    how are you subsidizing them? are you paying for their hospital stays?



    Market Street is only one of the many unsafe streets for cyclists of course (Divisadero! Geary! Masonic! ). I don’t bike (physical/medical issues) so I drive. I am so stressed by the roadways, people’s behaviors and general amount of traffic of all kinds on the streets. I pay close attention ,defer to bikes, pedestrians and skateboards, I’ve slowed it down and try very hard to be as safe as possible. I still worry. I applaud any effort to make things safer and every urgent, immediate steps the City can and should take!



    Interesting idea. I wonder how the costs compare between drawbridges and trams.

    It really just comes down to vertical clearance. If they chose to install a very tall drawbridge with 70′ of clearance at high tide, then it actually wouldn’t be a problem for the vast majority of vessels. It would still need to open for the very occasional working boat, dinner cruise ship, or Coast Guard clipper, but at least all but the very largest sailboats could fit under that. Unfortunately, 70′ is very high (imagine a 7 story building,) probably much more expensive, and would be quite lot of climbing, requiring huge ramps for bikes and wheelchairs.

    Unfortunately, any lower than that and this bridge would be perpetually opening and closing for all the countless sailboats that constantly traverse that part of the estuary and require 50′ or 60′ of clearance.



    The article did not say “caused by motorists”. It said “caused by traffic”. That would include injury accidents caused by buses, streetcars and bikes.



    So, one half of the new $1 Billion trauma center is devoted to taking care of the injuries caused by motorists. Isn’t this half a billion just another example of subsidizing automobile usage? Could that money have been better spent elsewhere?



    It often amounts to the same thing. Just this morning I saw a construction truck blocking the traffic lane, not the bike lane. Very thoughtful of him.

    Except of course the traffic stuck behind him all passed to the right, taking the bike lane to do so.

    As a cyclist, I’d rather deal with a stopped vehicle in the bike lane than deal with a moving vehicle.



    Maintaining road infrastructure is not a cost that is intrinsic to buses since roads are used by private automobiles, commercial vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, etc.


    SF Guest

    SFPD crackdown was broadcasted on Stanley Roberts segment People Behaving Badly on yesterday’s KRON 4 10 pm news, and reportedly inspired by numerous complaints. Many if not all of the rideshare drivers appeared clueless or ignorant of the law. These violations are so frequent a cop was shown thanking one of the few drivers who pulled over to a parking space to let his ride disembark.

    Tune in tonight at 10 pm if you want to see what drivers think.


    Jef Poskanzer


    Another reasonable alternative would be an aerial tramway like at Roosevelt Island in NYC.



    I think the statistics are actually under reported. I’ve been in two crashes as a cyclist. The first involved a motorcycle doing an illegal turn in front of me and I flipped over the back of his bike. No damage to me, but it was greater than 5 mph. In the second, I stopped at a 3 way stop sign, proceeded to make my left turn, and the car on my left didn’t bother to look right. He gunned the intersection after the most brief of stops and I ended up sliding over the hood of his car. I’m guessing he was going over 5 mph, not sure if I was. I had a cut on my finger and a slightly bent rim. If EMS or SFPD had been called, I’m guessing I would have qualified under this criteria.



    Google “wider freeways” and you’ll find study after study showing that making freeways bigger doesn’t reduce traffic. In many cases, it makes it worse.

    LA has realized that it needs to build more transit in addition to adding capacity on its roads. Sadly, the Bay Area hasn’t seen the light.



    If it were a dream, there probably would have been at least one mention of bike lanes in the segment. But this is reality, so it was only about blocking *real* lanes; you know, the ones for cars.



    It took the SFMTA four years to plan and build 0.5 blocks of raised bike lanes on Valencia Street. It too them 17 years to plan and build the 3 blocks of semi-protected bike lanes on Oak and Fell Streets. The Masonic project was fully funded in 2013 and we just this summer are breaking ground there. Is it any wonder why safety advocates are taking matters into their own hands?



    “SFPD Crack Down on Uber Blocking Traffic Lanes”

    Pinch me. Can this really be happening??



    I am a muni bus driver as well as a commuter cyclists. I drive and ride on Market st. When I drive, I let the cyclists stay ahead but I also get ahead when it is safe to do so. Often times I would see cyclists leave the dedicated bike lanes to pass up the traffic or they are riding on the center lanes even center division of South and North of Market. Lots of car drivers are on their phones and they do whatever they want on Market, illegal left turns, U-turn, blowing past red lights, stopping wherever they feel like. I also skateboarders who think they are just like the cyclist. The numerous jaywalkers who run or unsure when to run or walk. My bike commute segment of Market is between page and 11th and I get terrified.



    Agreed, Christopher. Part of the paradox I referred to is that the most “calmed” road in SF actually increases stress in drivers, elevating the risk for everyone.

    I never use Market. If I drive downtown I either use Mission or Bush. People driving down Market may well be tourists or folks from the suburbs.



    Sure it’s growing nationally, but from a tiny base. Your grandchildren will never see the day when more people commute by bike than by car.

    In fact there are now more cars on the road than ever before, not to mention the millions of new cars each year in China, India etc.



    Again you attribute to me all kinds of things I never said. I don’t know whether you, me or farazs are correct because we all have different data and sources.

    But even in your most favorable case, about 94% of people don’t use a bike daily in SF, and nationwide that rises to 99% or so.

    I never said it can’t change. But to change you need to work with those 94% and convince them. Not criticize them for being “wrong”



    The difference is that drivers do not deliberately set out to make life difficult for cyclists. Critical Mass has the specific intention of delaying and obstructing others