Today’s Headlines

  • Man Struck by Cyclist Last Week Dies (SFGateBCN via SF Appeal)
  • Hearing for Parking-Saturated CPMC Hospital Plan Today (SF Examiner)
  • “Mission Rock” Project Would Replace Parking Lot at Giants Ballpark (SF ExSFGateBCN via CBS)
  • Funding Plan for Free Muni Youth Passes Uncertain (SF Public Press)
  • C.W. Nevius: Don’t Raise Parking Fines for “Beleagured” Drivers (SFGate)
  • Art Agnos on 8 Washington: “We Tore Down the Embarcadero Freeway For This?” (SFGate)
  • How BART Finally Decided to Replace Its Bacteria-Covered, Gross Old Seats (Atlantic Cities)
  • Fatal Hit-and-Run Driver Admits to Targeting Pedestrians (Mercury News)
  • Driver Hits Pedestrian in Crosswalk in Berkeley (Berkeleyside)
  • SUV Driver Hits Dublin Boy in Crosswalk (CoCo Times)
  • Antioch Man Killed by Amtrak Train (CoCo Times)
  • Stanford Program Rewards Off-Peak Parkers, Ignores Non-Drivers (CBS 5)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • mikesonn

    CW, defender of the over-taxed peasants.

    “Residents of San Francisco go to extraordinary lengths to keep a car. They pay major garage fees, move their vehicle daily all over the neighborhood, and battle crazy downtown traffic. And all because they might want to do something like drive up to Wine Country, or Tahoe, or Monterey on a weekend.”

    You know, if I want to just use a car for the weekend, I rent one.

  • We have a car. My wife needs it to get to work because she isn’t close to Caltrain  so unfortunately transit isn’t effective. So you know what? We found an apartment with a fucking garage. 

  • Anonymous

    Your comment about Stanford ignoring non-drivers is misleading. Stanford has longstanding programs to give cash benefits to carpoolers, transit users, and bicycle commuters ($300/year or a free transit pass).

  • Looks like pedestrians are getting screwed by everyone these days…by cars, bikes, and trains. But let’s deflect blame from the transportation that we take, huh?

  • peternatural

    I chimed in on the comments:

    Meanwhile, over at the public housing blog, the residents are up in arms about being asked to pay rent for Sunday as well as the other days of the week.

    “My rent payments cover Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, AND Saturday. That is a lot of days. Now they expect us to pay for Sunday too? This outrageous money grab by the housing authority is the last straw. Every time we turn around we’re getting nickel and dimed. I’m fed up! I’d move out of the city if I could get subsidized rent somewhere else.”

    “Sunday rent is just another outrageous tax being imposed on helpless residents. The housing authority is out of control.”

    “On Sunday, the Lord rested. I want to rest too. Why should I be expected to come up with the rent for Sunday? I already cover all the other days. Let the taxpayer pick up the bill, and stop picking on me!”

  • Anonymous

    @mikesonn:disqus Exactly. It makes little sense to own a car for 365 days a year when you only really need it for a couple dozen. Or at least you can’t complain about having to pay to store it in that case.

    But saying that people only own a car to leave on the weekends is BS; he’s trying to appropriate the less self-interested cause of only rarely using a car to leave the city. In reality, most people use their car to go all around the city for work, errands, and entertainment *as* *well* as leaving for the weekend. The people he is talking about — own a car and only use it on weekends to leave the city *and* complain about the extraordinary “burden” they face having to move their car for street cleaning or pay for a garage — are a tiny minority. He has gotten desperate finding excuses for continuing our car-centric society.

  • mikesonn

    Let’s fight straw-men!

  • Troll attempt: [FAILED]

  • @jd_x:disqus  gotten desperate? I guess you have a better memory than I if you can recall a time when he wasn’t.

  • What straw man?  SF-Streetsblog spoke of a double standard last week.  The biggest double standard is that by SF-Streetsblog, when a cyclist hits and injures a pedestrian multiple articles go up here trying to downplay the event.   

  • mikesonn

    Streetsblog is doing what all major media outlets should be doing. The incident last week should spark a discussion about overall street safety and how every incident, every hit-and-run, every car v ped or cyclist v ped crash, needs to be discussed.

    Also, if we are going to make the streets safer for pedestrians, we need to apply the law to all injury crashes, not just when the driver flees or is intoxicated (or both). The bias has been pointed out time and again. No one is saying the cyclist doesn’t deserve blame if they did indeed do something wrong, but when the SFPD makes immediate statements saying that a driver “cooperated and didn’t intend harm so no citation was issued” again and again, case after case, we all need to pick up the slack and demand justice.

    Jason has an agenda to make all cyclists responsible for the actions of all other cyclists. We’ve had this discussion before and he accepts nothing less. So, back to my original comment, he is setting up a straw man argument that those on Streetsblog look the other way when we are in fact demanding more coverage and accountability for ALL modes and ALL people.

  • Aaron Bialick

    @facebook-100001895311343:disqus Seriously? Despite the fact that this story is the top of the headlines stack today, and the crux of the argument in my piece, you think that we are trying to “downplay” the event:

    “There’s no excuse for colliding with a pedestrian in a crosswalk, no matter what your mode of travel. But there’s also no excusing the double standard apparent in the media’s obsession with bike crashes, while traffic injuries caused by motorists go vastly under-reported.”

  • Interesting how the self-conscious speak up, but….I meant everyone blames everyone else….and pedestrians get screwed either way. Or should you rename this blog to BikesOnly-Streetsblog?

  • Correct. Stanford faculty members get a free annual transit pass good for Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans. Stanford pretty much props up the entire GOPass program.

    The headline on the CBS story is also misleading. It discusses parking, but the real issue with Stanford is traffic.

    There is limited parking on Campus – that is why the transit incentives and the huge Margaurite shuttle programs exist. The thing is, even with limited parking, there is even more limited roadway access into Campus. Palo Alto has always pushed back on any road expansion. Sand Hill Road used to terminate into the Stanford Mall parking lot and you had to negotiate the parking lot to get to El Camino from 280. The road now goes through, but you cannot come from Sand Hill into downtown PA directly – unless you are on a bike!

    As such, Sand Hill is always backed up during rush hour.

    This program wouldn’t really alleviate the parking problem but would impact the traffic problem, and that’s probably for the best. There cannot be any more net drivers into campus, with that number fixed, removing the traffic jams is beneficial.

  • @mikesonn:disqus  Please step out of the delusion that everyone has an agenda…you are projecting..which is evident in the shrillness of your advocacy. I’m just a pedestrian who dislikes being told that my anecdotes are meaningless…and that my own eyes are untrustworthy and that I’m somehow wrong/incorrect/stupid/mean to ask for some courtesy and rationality in this city we all share. You are the one with an agenda. I just want to walk in my city in piece.

  • Aaron Bialick

    @facebook-518248622:disqus No Jason, your comment seemed to pretty strongly seek out conflict, and given that I’ve watched you come here to comment just about solely on the issue of bicycling behavior, it’s fairly apparent what you were implying.

  • @azb324:disqus I’d appreciate it if you actually take what I’m saying as I’m saying it. If you do not seek/like differing opinions than yours here, then I see no reason to further bother your echo chamber. I mistaking took this place for a place of exchanging ideas.Just having a differing opinion does not make me a troll…that is an EXTREMELY closed-minded view. Please look past your own prejudices and allow for the fact that you might not have all the answers.

  • Please quote the passages that you believe deflect blame.

  • VCS

    I tried the Citycarshare / rental route, and found it too much of a pain and went back to car ownership.

    Citycarshare is a victim of it’s own success. The neighborhood cars would be booked solid over the weekend, forcing changes in plans or requiring me to rush home and return the car. (Also their Prius cars felt unsafe with lousy brakes.)

    Daily rental requires a temporary parking permit – $50 and an hour+ long wait at MTA. Gets expensive once you include the insurance, etc.

    Fortunately, I live in an inner SF neighborhood with avaialble street parking & excellent transit connections. (I’ll let you guess which one 😉 )

  • mikesonn

    City Carshare and Zipcar don’t work well for anything more than a day rental. Even at that time frame, might be cheaper to rent from an agency, which is what we usually do.

  • The Greasybear

    The Chronicle has loudly trumpeted this city’s *two* fatal bike v. pedestrian accidents since 2007 with breathless, wall-to-wall coverage–while simultaneously, day in and day out, deciding not to provide similar coverage to the thirteen-plus fatal motorist v. pedestrian accidents in SF *every single year.* 

    This kind of biased reportage intentionally appeals to those who are already antagonistic to the rise of urban cycling, people like Jason here, who only wants to discuss harm to pedestrians if the discussion can feed that existing anti-bike bias.

    If, however, the discussion adheres to the facts by rightly acknowledging motorists cause the greatest harm to the most pedestrians (and cyclists and other motorists), then the biased are only interested in smearing those providing the facts and fostering the reality-based discussion. That kind of double-standard and anti-bike bias should absolutely be challenged, whether advanced by the media or by individuals here in the discussions.

  • Bradforio

    As of this year, a lot more Stanford employees get the GoPass, because construction on campus reducing parking.

  • Anonymous

    @d9063d21801a490d2713fefe86d66bea:disqus You have to do the math. If you are renting a car (from a traditional car agency, not car share) to leave for the weekend, you figure out how much that costs and multiply by how many times you do that a year. If it’s more than how much you pay for parking, car insurance, gas, DMV renewal, smog fees, maintenance and just the headache of parking your car in the city and worrying about it, then it’s better to rent. But I can tell you that, if you are only talking 12 2-day weekends a year (1 weekend a month) in the case that CW is talking about, it’s cheaper to rent a car than own.

  • TN

    Re: Bike/Ped accident.

    This article from the Marin IJ contains details of the accident, including the rider’s view. 

  • Anonymous

    Typical San Francisco bicyclist. More concerned about his helmet than the elderly man he killed.

  • Not to defend Mr. Bucchere, but he posted that email shortly after leaving the hospital with a concussion and no real knowledge of the extent of the pedestrians injuries.

    And if the typical San Francisco bicyclist thinks that way, why is the first response to his email – from a San Francisco bicyclist – “I don’t think that’s the moral of the story”

  • Anonymous

    No, people who criticize bicyclists aren’t antagonistic to the rise of urban cycling, but they are perhaps critical of self-centered gunners like Chris Bucchere, the cyclist who killed Sutchi Hui, who are more concerned about their helmets than the carnage they leave in their wake.  We know cars are dangerous; we know cars can kill. I’ve been hit by cars in the crosswalk twice.  But cyclists contribute to a hostile street environment by whizzing silently past

  • Anonymous

    @saimin:disqus Thanks for the context regarding my bad choice of words for the Stanford article headline, looks like a double-fail on both my and CBS5’s part.

    A better article would have also mentioned that the Stanford congestion relief plan is actually pretty self serving, as the university’s future expansion is dependent on no net new peak hour car trips, as mandated in the general use permit. A better article would have also mentioned that while the CAPRI program is funded by the USDOT (i.e. free), the $25/month commuter subsidies are paid for by the university, which is in turn paid for partially by the students (i.e. not free).

    It’s still a great, progressive program and I did not intend to disparage Stanford’s Commute Club.

  • @pchazzz:disqus I really hope video of this incident surfaces so everyone can stop making assumptions about what happened. There have been instances where I enter an intersection on a green or start of a yellow well before cross-traffic gets a green light, yet before I get to the other side I have to avoid cyclists and pedestrians who at the very least aren’t waiting for the intersection to clear and often aren’t even waiting for their signal.

    I don’t mean to diminish the tragedy, but unlike the earlier collision at the Embarcadero, I can see a scenario in which the cyclist wasn’t breaking any laws. Would you be willing to extend your proposed vehicular ban to motorists as well?

    And lastly — I’m not going to apologize for the idiots out there, but you do have to realize that they choose all forms of transportation. If you want to throw around anecdotes then how about the driver who yelled “fucking cyclists” at me today when she was illegally turning on a red or the woman who passed me with 6 inches to spare when I was in the turning lane today. Should I condemn all drivers because of the actions of these two?

  • TN

    Sean Rea:

    I don’t think that this is a matter of assumptions. We now have a first hand account of the incident in the words of the cyclist. Read it carefully. The pedestrian can’t give his point of view since he has passed away. (This is a frequent complaint made by bicycling advocates when bicyclists are killed by cars. The victim is dead, so can’t provide their perspective.)

    If the account voluntarily given by the bicyclist is accurate, he’s got a lot of explaining to do. And the specifics of the incident is not the most significant part of the tragedy. His attitude about the welfare of the victim seems cavalier at best.

    This isn’t a matter of “media bias.” The words that are quoted are those of the bicyclist who posted them on line.

    Why are pedestrians scared of cyclists?

  • Anonymous

    There are many cameras pointed at/around that intersection. Speculation is interesting but we’ll get some facts.

    The post was ridiculously cavalier but this is America circa 2012, that’s not a crime in any court but the court of public opinion.

    Pedestrians are scared of cyclists? Are they not scared of cars? Why not? If that had been a car running a yellow/amber/red we might not have a dead pedestrian despite the same behavior, because much like drivers are not trained to see cyclists, peds aren’t trained to see cyclists. This is exacerbated by cyclists proximity to the curb. Peds aren’t as good at looking for poorly behaved cyclists as poorly behaved motorists. It’s unfortunate the burden has landed on them to deal with either.

  • Anonymous

    Here is a question for the cyclists out there.  Why couldn’t Bucchere have turned up 17th Street from Castro to avoid hitting the pedestrians in the crosswalk? 

  • You’ve asked this a lot of times so here you go, pchazzz

    17th is an abrupt right turn at the bottom of the hill. It also involves a change in grade from steep downhill to steep uphill. At over 20 MPH it would be a very difficult (impossible) turn if you were already setting up for the turn, let alone as an emergency maneuver. To make a turn like that you need to unwieght your butt from the saddle, have your hands in the drops, set up in the correct line, and be prepared to shift your weight and counter steer properly. The correct line would require him to be pretty far to the left hand side of the lane counter to your previous thinking. He was planning on going straight (this is not in dispute) so he would be out of position for such a turn.

  • At least Stresstsblog gives this tragedy a minor mention Gothamist  (hipsterist) who plasters every cyclist injury all over it’s pages is strangely silent when it appears that a cyclist may be in the wrong.