Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Luce Morales

    > Does she deserve to be charged as a felon for it, while she wasn’t the one piloting a motor vehicle?
    You don’t understand the charge. The aunt is being charged for placing the child in a perilous situation that was foreseeable. And race has nothing to do with it. Whatever your race, you’re not supposed to leave two year-olds in a crosswalk, in the middle of oncoming traffic. Really, is there no example of irresponsible behavior by adults that we won’t bend over backwards to condone?



    It was never proven that he ran a red light. He claims he entered on the yellow, which is legal.



    Stefan Kuftedjian is a real sweetheart, he has been sued for doing damage with his automobile before.


    Jym Dyer

    @JJ94117 – 2 such incidents in the last 24 years, possibly longer. But since Bucchere is pretty much the only argument some people have, we can be assured to hear his name used as Ye One True Exemplar of Bicyclist Misbehavior for the next 24 years.


    Jym Dyer

    @Coco – It is considered polite to have some familiarity with the topics under discussion, a courtesy that goes back to the early days of the Internet, when F.A.Q.s were created so that newcomers didn’t just ask the same questions over and over again. Except in your case you aren’t even asking questions, you’re making an assertion that has been thoroughly addressed and debunked already here.


    Jym Dyer

    ≈ The playbook resembles the one we saw in use in NYC, in that all sorts of things were misattributed to various groups, including the now-classic Bike Lobby (“an all-powerful enterprise”). NYC’s Department of Transportation countered with cold hard data, so their version of the No-On-L crowd just had to gibber about how the data was made up, DoT was lying, Janette Sadik-Khan had bike advocates on speed dial, etc. etc. Seems to me that SFMTA ought to be getting the cold hard data out there.

    We should also listen to our Golden Wheel Award keynote speakers more. This year, Aaron Naparstek gave a great presentation on the backlash (the #bikelash if you’re on Twitter) in NYC, and what we learned from it. Sadik-Khan was here last year and showed how effective a data-driven approach can be.


    Jym Dyer



    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – It’s pretty interesting how many cowardly anonymous commenters in various Bay Area online media keep making the same assertions, and continue to do so after corrected. That’s not a mixup, it’s a strategy of lying, and it’s done because 1) it’s inflammatory and 2) the truth is not on their side.



    1) It is not humanly possible to always hold onto a child’s hand, and placing that 100% absolute standard on guardians is unreasonable, but popular in today’s America. Anything bad happens to a child, blame the parent or guardian for inattention.

    2) It is not okay in a pedestrian-rich, city-street environment to operate a motor vehicle either fast or slowly but in a manner that has the driver not noticing hitting something or someone in a painted crosswalk. Having the light does not absolve any of us drivers from observing what is in front of us.

    3) Race, income, and education very much affect how a person is treated by the police and whether said person will be perceived as irresponsible/criminal or as a sympathetic victim. I am not injecting race into this story. I am acknowledging it.



    I am not sure, but I look to see if the membership rolls of groups like WalkSF, transit rider unions, and various bicycle coalitions are growing. I suspect these groups would be the place to launch organizing campaigns to reach out to politicians. Formal lobbying and PACs have to operate under stricter tax status, but surely San Jose citizens concerned about Park Street could investigate these options.



    I do not think that making a race issue out of this tragedy is going to help. There is nothing in what has bee reported that indicates the relevance of race.

    I do not know if you have any children but I do, and I can tell you that you cannot let go of the hand of a two year old child for even a second. They can run between two parked cars and get killed in an instant, and trying to blame the driver in a situation like that is really missing the point. Parents and minders have an absolute and affirmative obligation to not only not leave an infant alone, but not even let go of their hand in a public place.

    That is not to say that she should be prosecuted. I cannot say based on the facts. But there is clear negligence here and an abandonment of the duty of care.

    Also, you do not know that the driver was going “fast”. Two mph might have been all it takes to kill an infant who runs out in front of a car. The situation should never have gotten to that point.

    And yes, it matters whether the light was green or red, at least in terms of establishing liability. If the driver had a green, was driving at a reasonable speed, and did not see the child, then I think that most reasonable people would not blame him (or her – the driver could have been a “black woman”, of course)..

    That said, there is a concern that the driver left the scene. Doing so deliberately points to culpability. But assuming that the driver did not see the child and could not avoid the accident, then the question becomes whether the driver could have hit an infant and not realized. That is hard to believe if the pedestrian was an adult. But at night with a small infant who possibly ran out at the last minute? It’s certainly possible.

    The driver may have felt a bump but would that have felt different than hitting other kinds of obstacles and obstructions in the street? I once hit a cat and didn’t realize it.

    I don’t know and neither do you. So it might be better to reserve judgement until we have more facts.



    Another black woman arrested for child endangerment. Because she did not negotiate a dangerous street with 20/20 perfect hindsight. Because she momentarily turned from one child in the crosswalk to get its twin on the curb to come with them. Because she may have jaywalked when no cars appeared to be nearby. Because this 25 year old auntie was trying to manage two 2-year olds,
    alone, at night, and she misjudged a quickly changing situation.

    Then Bam. A driver going so fast that he/she may not even know he/she killed child. Who in God’s name cares if the light was green or red? Why is this grieving woman (of probably limited financial means) arrested and stigmatized so easily? Meanwhile the police just want to talk to his car driver. Meanwhile, go ahead drivers and kill at will, as long as you have the right of way.

    And this: “Pedestrians feel their speed and their hurry is more important than
    their safety,” said Sgt. John Bragagnolo, after handing a jaywalking
    ticket to one man in the shadow of a memorial shrine of stuffed animals,
    candles and photos of the little girl.”

    I can’t say here what I think of the SFPD.



    Yup. So then the logical conclusion is the need to build more and more separated lanes, which incidentally really help motorists. Why?

    –> Gets bikes out of the way, especially on bigger thoroughfares. People on bikes happy. People in cars happy. Bike compliance goes up. Car compliances goes up. Hardly anyone *wants* to do scofflaw things like ride on sidewalks but those are coping strategies in the face of utter lack of infrastructure.

    –> “Converts” some car trips to bike trips = less car traffic. A car’s worst-enemy competition for parking and driving space is other cars, not bikes.

    That being said, the TED talk in the thread above addresses the problematic issues involved with an obsession about helmets.

    The biggest way to increase bike safety is to simply have more and more people doing it. Unfortunately you don’t get there by slapping sharrows on a 45mph expressway, asking drivers to be nice and having the helmeted mayor do a photo op where he asks drivers to please be nicer (and yelling at people on bike when they have the audacity to “not keep up” and act like a car at every point in the road whose laws and features are designed almost entirely exclusively for….not bikes).

    That’s not serious policy.

    Btw, though both biking and walking are overwhelmingly safe activities it’s statistically less safe to walk than to bike–fatalities per mile are much higher per person on foot than on bike, but since walking is something most people do (while biking isn’t) there’s somewhat of a:

    1) herd protection effect
    2) ubiquity = must be safe conflation (similar to the way many people who drive–even poorly–feel very safe in their cars while they’re freaked out about flying which is practically safer than most anything else, including taking a nap on the couch in your living room).

    Yet no one proposes helmets for pedestrians and drivers. These kinds of requirements (whether mandated by law or cultural expectation) are not rooted in reality.



    This very nice 1.6-mile gap closure in the Iron Horse Trail south of Dublin/Pleasanton BART was officially opened yesterday. Every speaker on the podium made a pitch for Alameda County’s transportation Measure BB coming up on the November ballot.


    Jacob Lynn

    Two minutes of research demonstrates that the location in question is actually a street shared with cars:,4.900556,3a,59.9y,192.53h,81.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOythpJ599jkQkESdaFPSQA!2e0

    But you inadvertently hit the nail on the head when you identify that the problem is that cyclists are forced to ride in heavily trafficked car thoroughfares for lack of safe, separated routes.



    No mention of the license either. I guess the assumption is that he’ll be driving himself home from jail? Because … freedom?


    Aaron Bialick

    We generally include all of the above (with the exception that we generally link to development-focused items only if there’s a strong transportation link).

    The fact is there happened to be none of those to link to today, and that’s why you may have the perception that you do.

    Unlike the difference in size with NYC, there aren’t quite enough crashes or staff resources to warrant a “weekly carnage” post for SF. Doing so wouldn’t open up room for more non-crash stories in the headlines. Once again, we are not omitting them in the first place.



    “I’m just saying, jerk cyclists who act like they own the roads are just as much of a problem, if not more of one, than the cars.”

    Cyclists are definitely more of a problem than the cars – because cars are inanimate objects. However, I assert that cyclists are less of a problem than motorists.

    My example, where a motorist drove onto the sidewalk and injured three people, is a pretty big problem, not replicated by any cyclist.

    Presuming you meant motorists, can you give me statistics that back that up? Say for example, fatalities/injuries caused by cyclists and similar statistics for motorists? If you don’t consider “fatalities/injuries” to be an appropriate problem to consider, feel free to cite statistics for any other problem that cyclists contribute more to than motorists.



    Hi Aaron, thanks for replying. I understand that a lack of funds and a need for local focus would point the headlines section in a particular direction. But I do think there are local findings that are more thought provoking, whether it is a policy paper from SPUR or a study by Stanford or an editorial at TheGreaterMarin, or the massive amount of housing and development mentioned on curbed.sf. These may not be the stories most easily accessed by purely news feeds, but they do arguably give a person a keener sense of what affects or will affect our streets, cities, and lives, than permutations of car crashes and driver misbehavior. A once a week round-up similar to New York’s carnage report might provide all the crimes and misdemeanors some of us need. That said, I do appreciate this site, and thank you for all your work.





    Those principles apply in California, too.

    “Briefly, here is a summary of the facts: studies estimate that motor vehicle users pay an average of 2.3 cents per mile in user charges such as gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls. However, they impose 6.5 cents per mile in road service costs. In contrast, cyclist impose road service costs averaging a miniscule 2/10ths of 1 cent per mile.”

    We all pay for the roads whether we drive or not because driving and road infrastructure is massively subsidized by general taxes that comparatively meager gas tax/DMV registration fees/etc. don’t come close to paying for.

    The more you drive, actually, the more you’re getting massive subsidies per mile in your favor, especially considering the wear-and-tear per mile cars wreak on roads.

    The more you get around by not-car (ie foot, bike, transit, etc.) the more it’s kind of a bum deal the way our current system is set up.



    Um, no. Nonsequitur, but I’ll bite. I don’t even really like driving, I’m not against cycling and walking is my favorite form of transportation. I’m just saying, jerk cyclists who act like they own the roads are just as much of a problem, if not more of one, than the cars. You’re not above the law because your bike doesn’t have a motor, and you can’t just cherry pick whatever rules benefit you the most. Follow the laws and we’ll be just fine.



    A candid video of the delusional/criminally insane:

    And when the mayor poses for a photo-op, he doesn’t even bother to wear a helmet!

    (translation of sign: “Traffic Safe”)



    I mean it says it right there that a lot of the money comes from gas taxes. Just because a lot of cyclists also drive cars doesn’t make a bit of difference if we’re talking about bike-only issues. Anyway, you sent me a report from not only an entirely different city, but also a totally different state, and one that has a VERY different tax structure, if you’ll take a second to learn about it.



    Yeah, complete unnecessary risk-taking idiots. These people far less than those who drive on the busy streets of San Francisco and “share” the steep roads with fast-moving cars rather than in clear pedestrian areas like the one in your photos.



    Who says I don’t care just because I commented on a 3 month old article? It’s not like it’s outdated at this point. It’s not rehashing if I haven’t first hashed it.



    I was hoping to see M Rhodes’ analysis in a readable print/online format: newsletter, magazine, newspaper, report, journal article, …

    People started asking questions about the analysis. Then you and M Rhodes begin damage control. Twice I asked where is M Rhodes’ analysis available for reading. No reply.

    At least M Rhodes could have come clean and write “the analysis does not exist in print nor online. I crunched the numbers on scratch paper over morning coffee or while I was waiting in the laundromat.”
    But that was too difficult for M Rhodes.

    M Rhodes’ numbers and analysis are not good.
    General Housing Characteristics, occupied housing units

    2000 Census 329,700
    2010 Census 345,511.
    Net increase 15,811

    M Rhodes cherry picks a lower estimate that results in an increase of 11,139 housing units. Then he tries to make his case.

    You advertised M Rhodes’ analysis that is not visible for anyone to read. Do you always have to use smoke and mirrors?
    Can you admit that his analysis does not exist?


    Nicholas Littlejohn

    You are right!



    Coco – was that you driving your car onto the sidewalk in Sausalito yesterday? You know, pinning that pedestrian against a wall, such that a bunch of cyclists had to lift the car off the sidewalk to free the pedestrian?


    Nicholas Littlejohn

    Fair enough. I was a it concerned and skeptical. Thank you.


    Nicholas Littlejohn

    Fair enough, I was just concerned.


    Nicholas Littlejohn



    Aaron Bialick

    The main function of the headlines is to keep readers updated on the most pertinent local stories about transportation. It’s mostly a reflection of what’s out there, found through scouring 40-some-odd local media sources daily, as well as Google Alerts and social media. We’re not omitting any pertinent local non-crash stories in favor of crash reports. If you have relevant stories we missed, feel free to share them.

    Unfortunately, we can’t produce more good news, and sometimes fluctuations in the news cycles and events mean there are more crashes and fewer stories about “policy, development, and studies.” It does happen that City Hall is currently on legislative recess, which may contribute to the lack of articles about policy developments.

    If you mean for us to find and include more non-local articles about transportation and planning, that would partly defeat the purpose of the city blogs’ headlines, as it would often mean omitting pertinent local stories, and it would require an expansion of the workload required to do them. These types of articles are also somewhat covered in the Streetsblog USA headlines, which is why we link to them.

    By the way, if you think this is bad, we generally don’t even include stories on most non-fatal crashes outside of SF (though we did happen to have some today due to the slow news cycle). The sheer volume of stories on traffic violence, traffic jams, and transit problems that we do omit may surprise you.



    Senter Rd and Balfour Drive has a recently installed crosswalk. Full stripe, protective island, florescent signs, and a button triggered hybrid flasher. Still no good. The city needs to take a hard look at what is actually going to work.

    The usual statement from the SJPD just point out jaywalking…bla bla…jaywalking, but most pedestrian fatalities in San Jose happen at marked cross-walks. Yield rate are never mentioned, but yield rates at marked cross-walks in SJ are less than 50%, and enforcement is near zero. About 10% of the the time you can hear the drivers engine start to roar as you attempt to cross, as they try and beat you to the middle of the intersection….forcing the ped to run back to the curb. 85th percentile speeds are already in the 50s mph, but when a driver tries to beat you to the intersection its more like 70mph range. Truly like trying to cross a freeway.

    The attitude of the SJPD is just to discourage anyone from trying to cross a road in east SJ at all. Yet SJ is seeing an increase in the population with income below $19k and many can not afford the $9k a year need to own a car, as this is almost half their income. This is a huge social injustice issue in east SJ that the city continues to do little about.



    Wow, Coco, you’re just going on a rampage here on old stories. You should read this blog (and ones like it) a little more rather than just mindlessly spouting the same old points which have been repeatedly addressed. It’s not even worth the time to try and rehash points when you clearly don’t care and are just trolling.


    Jacob Lynn


    Jacob Lynn

    SFPD is reporting that the driver in the Mi’yana case had the green light:



    The TED Talk above addresses these points.



    Wow, this is delusional. 1. How could you possibly be upset about the recommendation to wear a helmet while biking? Bicycle safety should be a primary concern for people like you who are advocating the acceptance of bicyclists. Depicting a person without a helmet would be stupid and also insane (just like people who bike in cities without one). Advocating against helmet use has to be the most counterproductive argument I’ve ever seen. Lets get rid of seatbelts in cars, too!

    2. The cyclist in the first sign is not hunched over – his back is completely straight. Do you not know what you look like when you bike? Have you never watched pro cyclists? Hint: you are not sitting straight up unless you are not holding onto the handle bars.

    Anyway, your basic point seems to be that bicycles are only safe when they have no rider, and that seems a little silly.





    It would be great to have some kind of bike tax to pay for stuff like that. Otherwise, it’s probably never going to happen.



    Pedestrians/bicyclists aren’t paying the taxes that pay for stuff like street signs. Volunteer some of your money for signs, if it’s too hard for you to turn your head to look behind you when you pass a street sign. Put up or shut up.



    Yeah, totally! Cyclists shouldn’t have to stop at lights or stop signs like they’re cars or something! Bikes should act like pedestrians when it’s to their benefit, and cars when its to their benefit, because they are superior to both.

    (This is sarcasm, in case that was not obvious. I frequently see cyclists blow right through lights/stop signs which is dangerous to themselves, cars, and pedestrians. Follow the rules of the road, you idiots. If you’re not fast enough to keep up with car traffic, then get out of the way. “Share the road” goes both ways.)



    GGB Patrol usually hang out in the parking lots, and CHP usually hang out next to Vista Point for speed stings. There is rarely ever any proactive traffic management and enforcement of the infrastructure surrounding the GGB. Simply look at how much Doyle Dr/Lombard and Veterans Blvd/Park Presidio are backed up on the weekends.


    Nicasio Nakamine

    Are stories being left out? These headline roundups seem like all the transportation news articles from the previous day related to the Bay Area.

    If policy/development articles are being edged out for more accident reports, I agree. However, if these are just strings of news links, without a limited length, I don’t see the harm of including all the stories. I only click through to the articles I’m interested in.



    Now police are reporting that the street crossing occurred while the driver had a green light… not that I believe them, but that’s their story.



    This stretch of Park is unlike Polk in that it is too small to be a self-sufficient commercial zone and too far from the nearest larger commercial zones to attract customers on foot. It does however have plenty of off-street parking though that parking is tied to a few of the post-WWII buildings. If some sort of parking sharing arrangement could be worked out then it would make everyone happy.

    As for politicians driving change, that would be great. Fortunately San Jose has a couple of council members who get it. Unfortunately they face reelection and might be reluctant to make “unpopular” decisions. Of course anyone who cares about the future growth of San Jose will support these brave council members. But we’re in the minority. SJ still has a drive everywhere mentality and significant resistance to the infill development which would make it easier to go about life without relying on a car.



    Child endangerment because she left a 2yo kid in a crosswalk during the crossing phase to get another 2yo kid from the sidewalk?



    Yeah, that whole stretch really is ripe for a redo beyond just the rain gardens, as mentioned in the link.

    For me it’s important as a N/S bike route–I’ll go out of my way from 19th (20th is marked as a bike route) due to the hills because Sunset is a lot flatter and more pleasant.

    And obviously this remains one of the most dangerous stretches for those on foot, as well.



    That’s a really good point. Do you think there’d be sufficient support for a PAC or more organized lobbying efforts?