Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – My point, which should be obvious to anyone who bothers to read for comprehension, is that the 3-foot rule does not apply in the oncoming lane, and that there’s no excuse for the CHP not to know that.

    It’s your “full responsibility/fair share” blather that is off-topic here. There was a discussion in an entirely different blog entry about costs and the facts of that were explained to you, but here you are just regurgitating the same uninformed opinions where they are completely irrelevant.



    From the Press Democrat article:

    “Sloat said officers are also investigating whether the cyclists would have been considered oncoming traffic at the time Rudin went around the vehicle in front of him. Under state law, motorists can pass another vehicle so long as the left side “is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic.”

    “We’re still investigating whether or not this is a legal pass, and whether it violated the state’s 3-feet law,” Sloat said.”

    The fact that they are even questioning whether or not cyclists are considered oncoming traffic in the first place is stunning, but not when you consider it in the context of another statement he had made here:

    “But CHP Officer Jon Sloat, who reviewed the video, said the incident did not warrant a citation. Instead, he said, the CHP sent a warning letter to the pickup’s registered owner, based on the distance between the two vehicles as they passed.

    “He was awfully close to that other car. We recognize that,” Sloat said.”

    You realize that CHP is more concerned about how close the driver passed the vehicle next to him – not checking to see if there was oncoming traffic, as if the people on bicycles in the opposing lane are completely irrelevant to a safe pass.



    Yeah, there is absolutely nothing the motorist could have done that is between staying at home or performing an illegal and fatal driving manoeuvre. Poor soul had no real choice in the matter.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Glad to help :)



    Thank you, Jeffrey, for all that information. I always learn something from your comments.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Well, under a different plan Brisbane is supposed to gain 11000 jobs by 2040, but also under that plan Brisbane needs to build about 6k housing units.



    One unitary government replacing city/county governments for the roughly 7 million people? Sheesh. Hard to fathom how much worse things would be if the likes of MTC and Bay Area Council were annointed with more power. As is, they operate beyond any level of accountability. Way back when, someone once said “no taxation without representation”.



    Would that figure of 83 housing units still apply if Brisbane created 4-5k jobs at the Baylands?



    Again, please demonstrate that the 3 foot rule applies here, which was the “topic”.



    You are correct. It is pathetic for people in SF to complain that towns in the Peninsula export housing when there is a net daily commute into SF of 400,000.

    The biggest homes deficit in the Bay Area is caused by Sf, which is bailed out mostly by the East Bay



    I’ll buy that water drainage issue requires more study and jacks up the price. What if we did smaller humps on either side of the crosswalk so drivers notice?


    Jeffrey Baker

    San Francisco is doing the majority of the dumping, even today. They are building space for twice as many jobs as residents. This is even blessed, perversely, by Plan Bay Area. Under Play Bay Area, Brisbane need only build 83 housing units by 2022.



    Yeah, I don’t know if there is a legal basis. The entire Bay Area is in throes of a housing and transportation crisis based on the past seventy years of development policies and disaggregated local governments. It just seems madness to me that now that we are well aware of the problems of siting housing far from jobs and transit, that we continue to allow one local government to dump responsibilities on another.


    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – More off-topic troll blather. Do attempt to stay on-topic if you must blather.



    Er… I meant to say ” commercial always comes out ahead because it creates a greater net revenue stream compared to *residential* “


    Jeffrey Baker

    What would be the basis of such a suit? The city of San Francisco is much further out of line with regional jobs-to-housing ratios than is Brisbane. If anything, the other cities should all be suing San Francisco.



    voltairesmistress – The root cause is economic, When measured by (consumption_of_services / tax_revenue), commercial always comes out ahead because it creates a greater net revenue stream compared to commercial. You don’t need to build schools, create public welfare programs, or need as much emergency services for commercial developments. But the tax can be lucrative.

    If we were to let the invisible hand of the market fix things cities would need to increase residential property taxes. That is really hard to accomplish in the current political environment.



    Surely everyone can see that had I been behind the wheel of that tractor-trailer rig my innate armchair skills and observation would have allowed me to sense danger to the irresponsible cyclists and maneuver the truck in such a way that the cyclist was sent off with a bit of a scare (because he deserves that) but would not have been run over (despite also deserving that).

    Whether this would have been through slowing cautiously, switching to hover mode, or other imaginative but certainly within grasp of my incredible skills is left open to discussion to encourage a diversity of opinions.



    The problem is that the city has to competitively bid the project and the contractor has to use Union folks and meet living wage requirements, etc., etc. Private projects don’t have these additional hurdles to jump and can be done much more cheaply as a result. So probably, the price is that high!



    I always drive in a manner that ensures that I can take safe evasive action. In particular that means keeping as far right as I can to avoid exactly this type of situation.

    but I see that some bike advocates here argue that cyclists should “take the lane” and keep left. The Suyama incident shows thw inherent risk of such an aggressive posture,



    Let’s go into the fantasy world of RichLL. RichLL is driving his car down a two lane road. There is a motor vehicle approaching from the on coming direction. Suddenly, unexpectedly, a second motor vehicle pulls out from behind the oncoming vehicle. RichLL realizes he’s either going to be involved in a head on collision or he will have to take defensive measures. He chooses defensive measures and drives his car off the roadway to avoid a head on crash. In driving off the road way RichLL is killed when his car fails to safely stop in the terrain off the road. But, since we’re in the fantasy world of RichLL only RichLL is to blame for his death – after all, he’s the one who drove off the road! Man I love the fantasy world of RichLL.



    Surely the real problem here is that the Bay Area should be one unitary government because it is one urban area. But instead it is a weird alliance of 9 counties and dozens of cities playing “beggar thy neighbor” with each other. The real Balkans are in our own back yard.

    Twitter extracted generous tax breaks not by threatening to move to another urban area, state or country, but by threatening to move less than 10 miles south.

    We wanted “local democracy” and so we have to pay the price of that, with petty fiefdoms endlessly and selfishly squabbling.



    Regarding the Brisbane Baylands development proposals for which Brisbane’s City Council opposes any significant amount of housing:
    “We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

    Is there any way San Francisco and other Bay Area governments can oppose regional developments that do nothing to address the housing shortage, even when such developments are proposed near existing transit hubs? Could San Francisco’s city attorney or environmental groups file a lawsuit or try to get an injunction on this type of irresponsible plan to site jobs in one place and housing in someone else’s town? If anyone has any legal knowledge or experience in this regard, I would welcome your comments.



    Of course, A bike is a vehicle because it has wheels. But it is not a motor vehicle.

    You cannot have it both ways, i.e. ask to be a vehicle when it suits you and a non-vehicle when it does not.

    Either take full responsibility, including paying a fair share. Or accept a different status. You don’t get a double standard in your favor.



    100% wrong, Jym. It was not a “head-on collision” as you claimed. That was a sloppy and ill-founded allegation.

    The car had a glancing impact with a cyclist who comfortably survived and another cyclist in the immediate vicinity appeared to panic and over-react, which resulted in a loss of control.

    If the driver had stayed home, Suyama would still be alive, but that really isn’t sound logic.


    Jym Dyer

    @Mark – 3-car trains are (back) in the works.



    The 3 foot rule doesn’t apply here. It only applies to vehicles passing in the same direction.

    Obviously if a vehicle has to swerve to avoid another vehicle than it may pass within 3 feet of a bike in the other direction.

    A good reason for cyclists to keep right, as the law demands


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – Something something plural of anecdote not something. WMATA has its problems, but it has its successes as well.



    Ah, OK, so questioning an opinion that you happen to agree with is just plain bad and wrong? Do you have any evidence that either:

    1) The ill-fated Suyama was hit by a vehicle as alleged? Or:

    2) That censoring, suppressing or ignoring criticism makes anyone safer?


    Jym Dyer

    @gneiss – Yes, but CVC § 21200 puts bicycles and pedicabs in the same legal category as “vehicles” (but not “motor vehicles”), so we clearly are traffic and the laws about traffic apply.



    Actually, what they were really questioning, was whether or not people on bicycles could be considered “traffic” for the purposes of the requirement that drivers were expected to pass only when the road was clear of oncoming vehicles. That’s why they were attempting to use the 3 foot passing law instead. Let’s point out that CVC 620 states the following:

    “The term “traffic” includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.”

    It is quite clear that CHP doesn’t believe that anything should be on our roadways except for cars, despite the all evidence in the CVC to the contrary.


    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – Pathetic pedant pissant trolling is not “diverse opinions” of any measurable value.


    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – Being a pedantic pissant troll is especially pathetic when a woman was killed. Pathetic.

    Yes, the collision was with the bicyclist directly in front of her, combined with whatever evasive maneuvers are required when a truck is coming directly into you. Dismissing this as “glancing” and the fatal outcome as “indirect” is really pathetic. If not for the actions of the motorist, she would be alive, there’s a ton of legal precedent along those lines.



    The only bias I see here is yours. Suyama was not struck by a vehicle. She lost control of her bike and fell.



    Because bias.



    Murph, how did you shutting out diverse opinions save these cyclists’ lives? Explain.



    The truly ridiculous statement in the context of the Suyama incident is this – “I think if he had just slowed down and had a little more awareness of
    his surroundings, we would have had a different outcome,” Sloat said.

    The exact same statement is very applicable to the Suyama fatality – had Courtney Rudin just slowed down and had a little more awareness of his surroundings, Amy Suyama would be alive. Why does Sloat make this statement regarding Frank Bish but not Courtney Rudin?





    Bias? How do you know that the cyclist was not darting in and out of traffic”?

    Eye witnesses (not the cops) corroborated thus: “Witnesses told CHP officers the bicyclist was riding eastbound on River Road, weaving between westbound and eastbound stop-and-go traffic, said Officer Jonathan Sloat, a CHP spokesman. He was reportedly out in traffic and going faster than the slow-moving vehicles when he lost control.”



    Except that there is no evidence of a “head-on collision” with Suyama. People just assumed that.

    There was a glancing collision with the other cyclist, Dean, but reports at the time indicated that Suyama “lost control” of her bike, implying that she suffered no impact.

    Presumably her fall killed her. So yes, you can argue that the driver indirectly caused her death by scaring here. But there was no impact according t reports I’ve read.


    Jym Dyer

    Before the insane “legally allowed to pass” statement they had released an equally insane statement in which they wondered whether the 3-foot law had been violated. Yes, in a head-on collision. Seems to me the CHP should know the CVC better than that.



    Regards the crash in Santa Rosa. WIthin an hour of the incident, the CHP had come out with a statement that the cyclist had “darted in and out of traffic” which was replicated in the online headline in the Press Democrat.

    Compare and contrast that to the killing of Amy Suyama 2 weeks before in Healdsburg, the driver was passing a vehicle by going into the oncoming traffic lane – which was occupied by two cyclists. The CHP made a statement that the driver “was legally allowed to pass there” and the Press Democrat headline was the neutral “cyclist killed in Eastside road crash”.

    The bias is strong with these ones.



    Jim, I never denied the existence of racism.

    What I said was that not every allegation of racism is valid, and that it is not racist to question an allegation of racism and subject it to rational scrutiny.

    You seem to think that even suggesting that an allegation of racism may be false is itself racism. Nonsense.



    Glad the quick and easy has been built here (even thou it’s pretty pitiful) but the 110k for the full build-out sounds like some contractor pork to me. Requires “extensive design, overland flow analysis” ? Just don’t block the gutters. Use metal grates over the gutters. Done.



    I use this crosswalk frequently. I was skeptical at first, but in addition to the grade level raise and the new white graphics, it actually does seem to slow people down.



    $110,000 seems an awful lot, hope it can be done more cheaply.



    I suppose Metro is good as long as you don’t mind getting killed in a collision, or a derailment, or from your car filling with smoke or…



    this is wonderful, but if you try and expand it the angry idiots will scream and yell and the SFMTA will capitulate



    Denying the existence of racism in America is racist.



    You are racist because you deny the existence of racism.