Today’s Headlines

  • Analysis: Most Bay Area Drivers Who Kill Pedestrians Face No Charges or Get Off Light (CIRABC)
  • Hit-and-Run Driver Critically Injures 24-Year-Old Man Crossing Lombard (SF Appeal)
  • BART Can Ban Riders With Bad Behavior Starting Next Week (ChronicleSF Bay)
  • BART to Increase Parking Rates at Six East Bay Stations in June
  • “Concerned Marinites to End NIMBYism”: High Turnout at Marin Plan Bay Area Meeting (Marin IJ)
  • Surprise, Surprise: “Save Polk Street” Merchants Back the Status Quo Option to Keep Parking (SF Exam)
  • Roadshow: SJ is National Leader in Pothole-Related Vehicle Damage (Mercury)
  • Oakland A’s Owe Taxpayers $7 Million for Coliseum Parking Revenue (KTVU)
  • An SF Designer’s Ideas for a New Muni Logo (Eric Stamps Media)
  • Interactive Map Tells the History of SF Street Names (KQED)
More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill
  • mikesonn

    The mere fact car crashes are referred to constantly as “accidents” already tells you all you need to know. And jury’s won’t convict because they know they don’t pay attention and it is only a matter of time until they also kill someone.

  • Muni worm logo for life!

  • Anonymous

    Mildly relevant, SFist asks “why is mission bay so ugly?” could it be because it was designed for cars?

  • Anonymous

    what’s even more alarming is that this data is based on crashes where the driver was determined to be at fault. Lots of the time, either through bias or just not following up, the police can’t/won’t determine who is at fault.

  • mikesonn

    Build the parking lots and they will come!

  • davistrain

    Regarding the BART “Bad Rider Ban” article: BART has been running for over 40 years now, and it took their hierarchy this long to realize that their passengers aren’t all clean, well behaved suburbanites..

  • davistrain

    Regarding the proposed new Muni logo: This is of interest mostly to the design and arts community, and to transit fans. Typical passengers just want their bus or railway car to be on time, clean and not packed like a sardine can. Paint jobs and identifying graphics are the least of their concerns.

  • mikesonn

    It isn’t really proposed anyway. It looks to be a side project by a designer, not something the SFMTA commissioned.

  • davistrain

    These occurrences are called “accidents” because very, very few drivers head out on their daily travels planning to run over some random pedestrian or cyclist. As far as “it’s only a matter of time until they also kill someone”. Many, if not most, drivers have gone from learner’s permit to their last automobile ride (in a hearse) without killing anybody. Yes, we need to eliminate the distracted and impaired drivers from our streets, but overstating the case just lowers credibility. I realize that many of the posters on Streetsblog would like to see privately owned motor vehicles disappear from our cities, but that won’t happen any time soon.

  • mikesonn

    “I realize that many of the posters on Streetsblog would like to see privately owned motor vehicles disappear from our cities”

    Talk about overstating your case! Give this man a gold medal!

  • Anonymous

    Re: Drivers who get off after hitting pedestrians. Forget community service—suspend their licenses! That will have greater impact on driving behavior.

    It’s only fair. What do you think the people injured by drivers are doing (assuming they survive)? Many can’t drive for prolonged periods due to their injuries. Some have to move out of upper floor bedrooms, some end up in nursing homes during rehab. Their lives are upside down.

    How will the careless drivers get to work without a license? Take the bus, catch a ride, walk or ride a bike. Plenty of people get by without driving even in the suburbs: people prone to seizures, people with poor vision, people with limited incomes and many others. Why can’t drivers who kill and injured be expected do the same?

  • mikesonn

    “How will the careless drivers get to work without a license?”

    Sadly, probably continue to drive.

  • Ryan Brady

    Friend of mine had a DUI and couldn’t drive for something like a year and a half. Bus and bike, and it’s a 30 mile commute.

  • mikesonn
  • Anonymous

    My former co-worker with a DUI drove to work every day legally after 30 day suspension. She lived 3.5 miles from work. She could have taken light rail/walked (33 min) or ridden a bike (20 min). Getting a restricted license for driving to work was pretty much rubber stamped. Further evidence that transit gets no respect. We don’t even force drunk drivers to use it.

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t matter to the person they killed whether they intended to do so or not, the consequences for the deceased are the same. And as long as there are little to no penalties for these incidents many people driving cars will fail to take their responsibilities as seriously as they should, and fail to operate their cars with due care and prudence.

    If I were to kill someone because of my own negligence using any object other than a car, would the consequences for me be as light? I think not. I’m not advocating for huge jail sentences or anything overly punitive, but if I were to mow somebody down with my car, causing death or serious injury, I would be shocked and saddened to find that there would be zero legal consequences for myself.

    “many of the posters on Streetsblog would like to see privately owned motor vehicles disappear from our cities”

    Most of the opinions I read here advocate for equal and safe access for all modes, including cars. It’s the gross overuse of cars in urban areas that gets panned, from my experience, which is quite a leap from suggesting a ban.

  • Drivers shouldn’t be put in jail because the design and culture of the area contributes to these deaths as much as negligence does. But if you kill someone while behind the wheel you should not have a licence. I’d use the same logic in an accidental death via gun, equipment operation or poor parenting.

  • I agree with this 200% (100 for cars, 100 for guns)

  • davistrain

    OK, I fell into the overstatement mode–most of the folks here realize that autos still have uses. But there are a few who do seem to subscribe to the belief that the motorcar is one of history’s worst inventions. The hard part is separating “legitimate use” from “gross overuse”. How do we say, “You’re OK, go ahead and drive” vs. “You really don’t need to drive where you’re going–here’s a Muni map.”

  • davistrain

    There was a “personal financial advice” column a month or two ago where some young fellow was whining about his sad state in life and worrying that his car would be repossessed. The columnist laid it on the line, saying something like: “You don’t have a God-given right to have a car. Time to get familiar with the local transit service and go shopping for a bicycle.”

  • I don’t subscribe to the belief the motorcar is one of history’s worst inventions , but if the worst fears regarding climate change come to pass, that will pretty much sum it up.

  • But if you can afford a car, you have a God-given right to do anything you damn well please with it.

  • flossy

    The current MUNI logo is perfect. It is the greatest logo of all time.