Today’s Headlines

  • Chris Bucchere Sentenced; DA Gascón: Message to All Street Users (ABC, CBS, KTVUSFGate)
  • After Amelie Le Moullac’s Death, SFBG Pleads for Sharing the Road, CBS Clarifies Right-of Way Laws
  • Truck Sends Taxi Flying Into Walgreens at Geary and Taylor, Hospitalizing Three (CBS)
  • Bay Bridge Span to Open September 3, Preceded by Five-Day Bridge Closure (SFGate, SF Appeal)
  • “If People Knew the Real Cost”: Willie Brown’s Shameless Deception on the Central Subway (SF Weekly)
  • Market Street Bike Counter Misses Commuters Who Aren’t in the Bike Lane (SF Examiner)
  • Urban Life Signs Draws Up Some Protected Bike Lane Plans for Polk Street on Streetmix
  • Uber Won’t Pay for Driver’s Crash (SF Weekly); Bay Area Teens Turn to Twitter for Ride-Shares (WNYC)
  • Pleasanton Driver, 18, Charged With Murder of Bicyclist After Bragging on Twitter (SFGate, Patch)
  • Stanley Roberts Confronts Driver Who Almost Killed Him in Castro Valley Crosswalk
  • Cyclelicious Has Updates on CA Bike Legislation, Ponders the True Cost of Operating Highways
  • Senator Steinberg’s CEQA Reform Bill Clears Assembly Committee (LAT)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anonymous

    That might be stanley robert’s best piece. He really called those people out, although he didn’t say, look how insane it is to pedestrians to cross four lanes of 40 mph traffic. Driver’s saying “they never saw the pedestrian” is, unfortunately, good enough for California courts though if they do kill someone.

  • Anonymous

    The CBS video is accurate but muddled. It is not clear about the important rule for drivers that many drivers don’t know. Merge right into the bike lane before making a right turn. Look before merging. Yield to a bike in the lane. Do not move right if there is a cyclist to the right of you. Do not accelerate to try to beat the cyclist and make the turn.

    Instead, it repeats that cyclists and drivers must obey the rules of the road. It has valid directions for cyclists to watch for vehicle blind spots and not squeeze to the right of a turning vehicle. But it doesn’t have clear instructions for drivers on how not to right-hook.

  • Mario Tanev

    I love how Gascon is proud that SF is the first city to issue such a sentence to a cyclist. Actual road safety? Gascon is nowhere to be found. There is no message to be sent to drivers who are the single largest cause of death on the road. What an embarrassment our city is.

  • timsmith

    Why is it that we only use mixing zones on protected bike lanes in San Francisco? The CBS video is yet another reminder of why Class II bike lanes should have mixing zones at all intersections. On a cycle track, a mixing zone is a downgrade in service from full protection, but for a Class II bike lane, it’s a huge improvement that could be spread across the city and greatly reduce the number of right hooks.

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t say the video was muddled, I would say it is flat out wrong, even in the statement given by the SFPD officer.

    A bike lane is a travel lane, just like any other one on the roadway, so if a car driver is making a right turn without merging into it then they are always in the wrong by not turning right from the rightmost lane, even if they arrived at the intersection first. Would a car driver be expected to yield to another driver turning right across their path from one of the middle lanes? The same situation applies for bikes.

    It is frustrating and downright scary that even the SFPD doesn’t understand this, and makes me wonder how this clouds their perception of fault at the site of a collision.

  • Bob Gunderson

    Gascon tells residents that if they want to kill someone in a vehicle, bit better be an automobile so you avoid any kind of repercussions. Another reason to ditch your bikes, people.

  • Anonymous

    What is SFBC doing to improve education for SFPD, so officers know what the law is?

  • Anonymous

    Agreed. Glad to see Roberts spending more time on the real problems with our cities — motorists — instead of haranguing pedestrians and cyclists.

    What also blows my mind is that drivers think it’s an excuse to say they didn’t know about the law where they have to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. That’s just flat-out an automatic failure of knowing the laws, and by having a license, you must know all the laws. And so if you don’t know, that’s license revocation and being required to take a driver’s test until you get it back (in addition to whatever fine). Similarly, if you think “I didn’t see the pedestrian” is an excuse, then you also fail. As a motorist, it’s your job to see pedestrians directly in front of you. If you don’t, then you also lose your license and need to take a course and test to regain it. Ridiculous the crap we let motorists get away with while the carnage, er “accidents”, continue.

  • gneiss

    What’s worse is based on that interview I believe they misapply the rule to yield to forward traffic in these cases and assign blame to cyclists for right hook accidents since they are ‘behind’ the the car rather than the car being in the incorrect lane position. We really must get more information on the investigations of these crashes to see why the police are given those truck drivers a pass.

  • Anonymous

    I work only with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, but on this side of the bay we have initiated a program bringing “bike traffic school” programs to individual cities like Alameda, where we partner with the PD to give ticketed cyclists a chance to take a safety class and have their fine reduced. However, this also gives us an opportunity to interface with the police in that city, giving them guidance on what type of enforcement has the largest impact on safety while also ensuing that the law is not being applied incorrectly. Police officers generally don’t have any malice toward cyclists, but laws that are not often enforced are also not well understood.

    I know that the SFBC and SFMTA have both been very interested in bringing a similar program to SF for some time, but large police departments are often difficult to work with as they have entrenched priorities that this type of activity doesn’t fall into neatly.

  • Anonymous

    Once you start seriously thinking about it, the SFPD officer’s statement from the video becomes more and more ridiculous. Imagine you are cruising along in the bike lane at 12-15 mph, with car traffic whizzing by you at 30+ mph. Every time you come to any cross street, driveway, curb cut, etc, where a car might turn right you suddenly have to stop and yield to every car that overtakes you from behind, and assume that they will be turning right? Is he seriously suggesting that people on bikes need to yield to every other road user traveling the same direction regardless of their position in relation to said bicyclist? Not only is this not how the law is written in the CVC, it would prevent any type of bike movement in a high-traffic, urban setting.

    The real answer to how drivers should handle the right-turn-across-bike-lane situation is very simple. Just deal with it like any other lane change, by signaling, yielding to traffic already in the bike lane, then merging into the bike lane within 200 feet of the intersection, then signal again and turn right after yielding to any traffic with the right of way or peds in a crosswalk.

  • gneiss

    What I would do is show the police the situation in the video starting at the 2 min. mark. Do they honestly suggest that the cyclist can legally pass cars on the right before the intersection while in the bike lane but then should be forced to stop at the intersection for a car turning right that hasn’t moved over properly? If so, then it is incumbent on the city to change each intersection treatment to create mixing zones where the bike lanes goes left and the turn lane is right up against the curb to clearly delineate what cars and bicycles should do rather than create an inherently dangerous (and apparently illegal for cyclists) situation using a straight dashed line.