Today’s Headlines

  • DPW: One-Way Protected Bike Lanes Selected for Second Street (via email, no URL)
  • SF Supes Ask for Public Hearing Before Free Muni for Youth Funding Allocation (SFExam)
  • Bay Citizen Video Examines 38-Geary Driver, Rider Perspectives
  • Concord Driver Gets 3 Years Juvenile Detention for Killing Father, Daughter Cyclists (CoCoTimesCBS)
  • Santa Rosa Pedestrian Struck by Car Driver on Saturday Dies of Injuries (PressDemoKTVU)
  • Pedestrian Critically Injured by Driver at Fourth and King Near Caltrain Station (SFAppeal)
  • Windsor, CA Earns ‘Bicycle Friendly City’ Designation (PressDemo)
  • Pleasanton Police Cracking Down on Underage, Helmet-less Cyclists (PleasantonWeekly)
  • After 3-Foot Bicycle Pass Veto, “Jerry Browned” Now Slang for Unsafe Passes (NewsReviewLATimes)
  • Opponents of CA Prop. 33 Claim It Could Lead to More Uninsured Drivers (CoCoTimes)
  • Bay Bikers Blog Examines the Many Forms of Modern Bike-Share

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Here’s the text of the 2nd Street email from SFDPW:


    Vital urban corridor would be safer, greener 

    After holding two community workshops and conducting a survey to get the public’s important feedback on transforming Second Street, a preferred option has emerged that includes constructing protected bike lanes, adding pedestrian and transit improvements and landscaping the corridor. “The aim of the Second Street makeover is to improve safety for everyone – pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and transit users – and to beautify the landscape by creating a new greenway along this vital urban street that connects the downtown and the South of Market,’’ said Mohammed Nuru, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works is managing the project and working in partnership with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and City Planning.The One-Way Cycletracks option, as the preferred plan is known, now will be developed in more detail. The City will look at such aspects as traffic engineering, transit operations, landscaping, environmental impacts, parking, accessibility, cost and overall design to determine its feasibility. The preferred One-Way Cycletracks option envisions building buffered bicycle lanes in both directions, increasing opportunities for landscaping, and retiming traffic signals to separate bicycles from turning vehicles. It also may entail removing parking on one side of the street between Market and Harrison streets; removing all parking between Harrison and Bryant streets, and retaining parking on both sides of the street south of Bryant Street. Left-hand turns may need to be restricted at some intersections during certain hours of the day. The Second Street Improvement Project also includes roadway resurfacing, concrete curb reconstruction, the installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps and upgrades to the traffic signal system.  The community has identified Second Street, which stretches from Market Street to King Street, as a primary pedestrian, bicycle and transit thoroughfare. The preferred option received the most community support in DPW’s outreach efforts, which included two neighborhood meetings that each drew more than 100 area residents and business owners. The department also received more than 100 written comments contained in a community survey. The next informational neighborhood meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Nov. 28. The neighborhood location for the meeting will be announced in the coming weeks. “Second Street is one of our priority corridor improvement projects in District Six, connecting Market Street to the ballpark,” said Supervisor Jane Kim, who represents the area.  “I attended the last two public meetings and was impressed with the high level of engagement and participation from the community. Clearly that has netted a preferred alternative that prioritizes cyclist and pedestrian safety, for which I continue to strongly advocate.” The estimated cost of the proposed upgrades is $8 million; funding for the project has not been yet been secured. However, the City is applying for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) federal funding for design and construction. More information on the Second Street Improvement Project, including conceptual renderings of the One-Way Cycletracks, can be found at

  • Guest

    4th and King– so badly designed that the city sends out crossing guards to make it less dangerous for pedestrians.

    Come on, people. We flew to the moon and carry the internet in our pockets; why won’t we build safe streets?

  • mikesonn

    280 off-ramp more important than pedestrian safety and a function transit intersection.

  • Anonymous

    “The pedestrian was running across the street when he was hit by a car that had a green light, police spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said.”

    If this is true, the design is not to be blamed.

  • mikesonn

    This was right after the Giants game. Not to mention this area should be ped/transit priority zone.

    JJ94117, you should have continued to read:

    “He flew about 30 feet in the air before landing on the ground”

    How fast was that driver going to make a person fly 30 feet in the air? I’d say the design is at least partially to blame.

  • Davistrain

    Ever since the Apollo moon landings (40 years ago), the question of “If we can put men on the moon, why can’t we ________(insert problem here)?”  What this point of view forgets is to distinguish “special events” from “everyday activities”.  When the majority of the public in general, and decision making (usually white male)
    people in particular, travel about in motor vehicles, it’s no wonder that creating safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists, and improving public transit are uphill fights.

  • JJ – there is a very clear design flaw from a human factors standpoint.

    On one side of the street, we have 2 MUNI Metro stops. On the other side we have Caltrain. Missing your connection can cost up to an hour for Caltrain. Dozens of people trying to get their connection are lower priority than the few driving onto 280 at the same time.

    Not to mention post Giants…..

  • Guest

     I see where you’re going with the apples/oranges, Davistrain. But the point remains that if we can accomplish the most difficult feats, we should at least be able to manage the more mundane.

    If people are running across the street, that also suggests that something has gone wrong in the design, JJ.

  • sjbrown

    4th and King – the pedestrian was running across the intersection.  Perhaps to catch the last train at 9pm?  On Sundays the last train is usually at 9, so maybe the pedestrian was in the position of choosing to make a risky run against the light or to be stranded in SF until morning.

  • Hojo


    Actually it doesn’t necessarily need a high speed to cause a pedestrian trajectory of that magnitude. When a moving object of large mass hits a (near) stationary object of low mass then Newtonian physics entails, under the conservation of momentum law, that the lighter object will depart the impact at a much higher speed.. The formula is P = mass times velocity.

    If the angle of attack is also oblique, then that could involve a vertical vector of movement as well.

    So a 2000 pound object traveling at just 10 mph could impart a significantly higher velocity to a 200 pound object.

  • mikesonn

    Oh @b82af39f5363aab259579e4ca7358a4d:disqus , you try so very hard.

  • Hojo

    Not hard, Mike. It’s 10th grade HighSchool physics.

    Or playing a lot of pool 🙂

  • mikesonn

    You aren’t taking stopping distance into account. Injury/death potential for a pedestrian grows exponentially once the vehicle is traveling over 20 mph.

    I’m just continually reminded that there are drivers like you out there and it makes me enjoy every day because it could be my last.

  • Hojo

    Mike, I wasn’t suggesting that some drivers don’t drive too fast nor that speed isn’t a factor in accidents. I was simply pointing out that a pedestrian being projected 30 feet doesn’t not necessrily entail that the vehicle was going fast, as you had previously implied.

    In fact, my youngest son had a bike accident where he was thrown about 20 feet and the vehicle he collided with was hardly moving. A lot depends on the angle e.g. head-on, side-swipe, read-end etc.

  • mikesonn
    Hat tip to @transbay for finding this study. I was having a tough go of it on Google. Now for some math.

  • Hojo

    Mike, as interesting as that is, there is nothing in there that bears on the alleged assertion that the driver in this accident was speeding. In fact, reports indicate that it was the pedestrian that was “running”.

    Do you have a shred of evidence indicating that the driver was at fault here?

  • mikesonn

    Hojo, my assertion is anything over 20 mph is too fast for that area. Period.

    Evidence, my link and a million studies saying: “twenty is plenty” in pedestrian zones.

    You can apologize for the driver all you want, that’s on you.

  • Hojo

    Mike, I was asking you for evidence that this particular driver was breaking the speed limit. You implied that but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that it is true.

    Most traffic in SF operates at about 20-30 mph. Whether that is safe or not depends entirely on conditions. 

  • mikesonn

    I gave you a link with crash reconstruction equations. I did the math and got about 40mph. Considering this was after a Giants game in a sea of fans around a busy transit point, I’d say that is “too fast for conditions” much like the speed limit can be too fast during a heavy rain.