Today’s Headlines

  • Scott James’ Shoddy Attempt to Stir Bike Plan Opposition (Bay Citizen)
  • SF Planning Commission Approves Treasure Island Plan (SF Gate)
  • Chron Editorial: “Keeping California High-Speed Rail Plan on Track”
  • Hearing Today for Muni Driver Caught Texting While Driving (KTVU)
  • More on GG Bridge District Hearing on Cyclist Speed Limit from BCN via KTVU
  • More Coverage of SFPark from SF Gate and SF Examiner
  • Obama Recalls Minneapolis Bridge Collapse; Media Blunders Story (Streetsblog LA)
  • Bike-Share Will Launch in Boston This Summer (Streetsblog DC)
  • Man Suffers Serious Injuries After Being Hit by a Santa Rosa City Bus (Press Democrat)
  • The Sad Stats on Bike Deaths in SoCal in 2011 (Biking In L.A. via Sblog LA)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • mikesonn

    “Gilson, a chiropractor, said that when he left his Division Street clinic one evening last November, he found a $65 ticket on his car. The street parking that he and his patients had used had been removed during the day and replaced by a bike lane.”

    So did his car get towed? Or did they just paint the bike lane around his car? Also, I’m pretty sure that signs are posted when parking is prohibited for several days in advance warning that certain street parking will be unavailable and a reason why. If he ignores such obvious signs, I worry about his driving skills and his practice.

  • voltairesmistress

    Your headline misrepresents Scott James’ article — he is not stirring up false opposition to SF’s bike plan implementation. Far from it — he is reporting on the bumps in the road attendant to the realignment of resources. Drivers (in this case, customers and owners of businesses along new bike lanes) are unhappy with the loss of parking to make way for bike lanes. And they are complaining about it and how the lane seemed to be sprung on them without due consideration of their local needs. That’s it. Such disputes and debates should arise whenever a government repositions resources, helping some people while taking away from others. Don’t kill the messenger for letting us know about this issue.

  • Lionel

    Mike, would it really kill DPT to give people a break on at least the day they implement changes like that? Maybe leave a note rather than a ticket? Showing zero tolerance while the paint is still wet is hardly a good way to get buy-in for such changes.

  • jd

    Re: Scott James’ article

    First, I totally agree that the city should notify residents officially and well in advance (at least a month) if bike lanes are coming. I don’t care what the issue is — you always must warn residents ahead of time. That’s only fair. It doesn’t help the cyclist cause to have people feel like they are being screwed over.

    However ….

    “Gilson, a former triathlete, thought the issue was larger. He said that cyclists had become a powerful political force, and that city leaders had forgotten that most people did not bicycle (7 percent of trips in the city are by bike, according to the coalition), including parents who must shuttle children or those with physical limitations.”

    I’m so sick of hearing this. First: you don’t give the most extreme examples (people with physical limitations) when considering policy. If the only people that drove were people who really needed to (because of old age, physical limitations, large amounts of cargo, etc), our problems with traffic, pollution, livability, etc. would be *solved*. In reality, the problem is that the majority of people driving are more than capable of cycling or walking, yet they simple choose not to. That is what I hate about this argument: most people are using it to co-opt a legitimate excuse for their illegitimate cause. They try to play off some knee-jerk emotional reaction: “But how dare you tell the paraplegic they have to ride a bike!” That has got nothing to do with it, just like talking about wealthy people drinking bottled water has got nothing to do with people legitimately needing it because their water supply is contaminated like after a natural disaster.

    “It’s so anti-family and anti-elderly it’s not even funny,” he said, referring to the bike plan.

    That’s such a pointless statement to make. There is nothing about riding a bike that is anti-family. Go like on at Amsterdam or Copenhagen to see how many families are biking. Hell, even here in SF and Portland many families cycle together. That is an anachronistic, thoughtless, and ignorant comment to make.

    And again, sure, certainly many elderly can’t ride a bike, but like I said earlier: if the only people driving were the ones who really needed it, our problems would be solved. This has got nothing to do with that. Instead, it is about wealthy and physically capable (if obese … although that’s all the more reason they should be cycling) people *choosing* to drive instead of walk or cycle. And by choose, I include choosing to live and work in places such that it requires them to drive. And it includes supporting political candidates and government initiatives that do not support public transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and livable cities.

  • mikesonn

    @Lionel: I’m saying he’s full of it. DPT posts signs well in advance of any parking closure. Also, tell me how they are going to paint a lane that takes away parking spaces with a car PARKED in the space?! Did they make the line swerve around his car? Did they paint over/under it? Did they just leave a big gap where his car was?

    The point: he’s lying.

  • mikesonn

    Thank you for addressing that. I’ve been ranting a bit too much the last couple days so I figured I wouldn’t address that as well, but you hit it right on the head.

    “If the only people that drove were people who really needed to (because of old age, physical limitations, large amounts of cargo, etc), our problems with traffic, pollution, livability, etc. would be *solved*.”

    SPOT ON!

  • jd

    Actually, the messenger can very much have to do with the message. For the article to quote the quotes I commented on in my previous posts without any of the opposite opinion (eg, that there is no inherent reason why cycling can’t be a family thing … oh, other than the fact that people like him keep fighting us from actually making our cities safe for cyclists!), that’s shoddy reporting. His whole article reeks of an outdated mindset, of a time that is past and which was never even sustainable in the first place. To not mention all the positives of cycling in such an article is shoddy. Sure, it’s crap that the city didn’t warn people about the bike lanes, but that has got nothing to do with the merits of having more people cycling. There’s a reason so many city planners and traffic engineers are trying to get more people cycling, and just because it’s still a minority of people who cycle has nothing to do with the merits of the whole idea of getting more people to cycle.

  • Kevin

    ““I lost time, energy and money fighting this situation,” O’Hanlon said. “It was very disrespectful to working-class people. You’d never try to do this in other parts of the city.””

    Just a few paragraphs before the article reports O’Hanlon an owner of a motorcycle shop. This confuses me, when was owning a business considered “working class”?

  • Nick

    Where’s the articles that shows how ACCOMODATING the MTA and SFBC are of neighborhood concerns?

    1st example: one block of the new Ocean Avenue bike lanes are being REMOVED due to neighborhood complaints over a lack of parking (Ocean @ Lee Avenue). This will also help reduce car congestion which slowed down MUNI.

    2nd Example: The trial bike lanes on Holloway Avenue are being REMOVED because motoring residents do not like the new narrow lane configuration.

    That’s almost a mile of lanes were giving back! Write about that Scott James.

  • That Chronicle editorial is especially spineless, uninformed and patronizing. And the Chronicle is a publication that excels at those characterists

  • Peapod mom

    Right, cos, you know, calling bike advocacy the “bicycle juggernaut” isn’t a misrepresentational headline at all. You have got to be kidding me.

    No, here we are, still compromising, still in harm’s way.

  • Peapod mom

    I was referring to the NYT’s reprint [link=], FYI.