Today’s Headlines

  • Mayor Celebrates New Phelan Bus Loop and Affordable Housing Development (CA Newswire)
  • Task Force to Recommend Sites for New Parks and Open Spaces in Growing District 6 (SFGate)
  • SF Chronicle: Proposed Regulations for Ride-Share Drivers the “Right, Measured Response”
  • Tour de Fat Shaping Up to Be a Good One This Weekend (Richmond SF)
  • BART Calls Off Labor Negotiations for Rest of Week (CBS)
  • Oakland Tries Out Green Carpet-Style “Supersharrows” on 40th St. (KQED, EBBC)
  • Watch: Driver Rams Oakland PD Cruiser When Caught Doing Donuts (People Behaving Badly)
  • GG Bridge District Set to Approve $26 Million Concrete Movable Traffic Divider (KTVU, ABC)
  • Left-Turning Driver Kills Woman on Bike on Hwy 35 in San Mateo County; No Word on Charges (CBS)
  • San Jose Inexplicably Fails to Re-Stripe Crosswalk on Hedding Street Where Student Was Hit (NBC)
  • On the Use of “Cyclist” and Other Vocabulary Choices in Promoting Bicycling (Cyclelicious)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • mikesonn

    So this happened (is happening, she’s still going):

  • mikesonn

    So this happened (is happening, she’s still going):

  • justin

    As someone who bikes every day in SF, I completely agree with her.

    The number of bicyclists who blow through crosswalks full of pedestrians on Market alone shows how we are losing the public opinion battle. Not to mention the rampant running of red lights and stop lights in front of peds and drivers who have the right-of-way. Even if the behavior of drivers is 1000 times worse, ***it doesn’t matter*** because bicyclists are contributing to the mayhem of SF streets in very visible ways.

    Yes, SF streets are designed for the movement of cars at high speed, to the great peril of cyclists. Yes, SF drivers are reckless assholes. No, that does not give cyclists the right to blatantly break laws designed for safety, making it uncomfortable or even dangerous to walk (e.g. the wiggle).

    It is obvious that many drivers, and even cops, despise bicyclists as a whole in SF, and that is mostly our fault.

  • Gary

    I see it everyday, people in all walks of life, from the biz suits to the hipster blowing through stop signs, lights, and ped walks without even looking both ways.

    If this is to stop, there has to be some severe penalties, what else would work except to hit the pocket book?

  • gneiss

    Justin – I beg to differ on your rational for why traffic laws exist. They laws are *not* designed for safety. They are designed to facilitate the movement of motorized traffic in an organized fashion and (at least in San Francisco) are reactionary in a ‘get that adult bicycle rider off the sidewalk’ kind of way. All you need to do is look to the Idaho Stop law and the differences in sidewalk riding laws in different municipalities (don’t forget that children can ride on the sidewalks in SF even though adults cannot) to see how absolutely ridiculous laws are that govern the movement of bicycles on our public right of ways.

    The reason why many people despise cyclists has more to do with an inherent ‘out-group’ bias than anything else. For a District Supervisor who happens to be a minority to say this shows how little she really comprehends the issue that faces many riders.

  • Oliver

    I’ve gotten a fairly severe ticket (forgot the amount but was around $150 I think) for running a stop on a bike. It’s rare for both cars and bikes, but non-accident infraction enforcement happens.

  • I am a driver, pedestrian and bicyclist. I see drivers blowing through stop signs and pedestrians constantly crossing against red lights. I am at a loss to see how I can improve the behavior of any of these groups while I am in the act of driving, walking or biking. I am totally for police ticketing bicyclists who do not yield to pedestrians. However, SFPD refuses to do this: instead they waste their time and my taxpayer dollars ticketing bicyclists who roll through stop signs when no other traffic or pedestrians are around. It is as if they don’t care about pedestrians whatsoever, they just want to discourage people from bicycling. Though such a policy may seem satisfying to people who believe city streets belong to cars alone, given the fact that bicycling and walking are the forms of transportation that do not harm the planet, do not sicken and poison people, and not only do not cost the taxpayer money, save the taxpayer money, it is a highly misguided policy.

    The fact is, at intersections with no other car traffic, over 90% of cars roll through stop signs in this city. Because the car is decelerating, it may feel like the car has come to a stop to the driver, but if you sit at a random bus stop at a random four way intersection and watch, you will see that 9 out of 10 cars do not come to a complete stop when no other cars are around. In fact, 5 out of 10 don’t slow down much under 5mph.

    In 20 years as a pedestrian in this city I’ve had a bicyclist come too close to me very fast, once. Yes, if that cyclist had misjudged just an inch I would’ve ended up with broken bones. That is unacceptable. But in contrast, as a pedestrian, I’ve had risky encounters with motorists three or four times a year, situations where, if I had not been on my toes and vigilant for motorists who don’t look/don’t stop/run red lights/don’t see me in their blindspot/speed 20 miles over the speed limit/punch their gas pedal and accelerate insanely, I would’ve ended up dead or in the hospital for a good long stretch.

    The vast majority of people, once they have ridden their bike for transportation on a city street full of stop signs, instantly understand the futility of applying car rules to bicycles. This is the crux of the problem. If our streets were designed for bikes instead of cars, there would be four-way, low-speed yield intersections where pedestrians had the right of way, and this would be enforced via street design that makes fast bicycling difficult or impossible in high pedestrian areas, street design that separates faster bicyclists from pedestrians altogether (for instance, give fast bicyclists their own space off the panhandle instead of overcrowding peds and cyclists on the mixed use path) and via police enforcement. The best way to kill bias against bicyclists is 1) to get reckless bicyclists to slow down and yield to pedestrians, and 2) get a lot more people on bicycles.

  • gneiss
  • LHT

    And they’re calling it an “accident” as well. Ugh. So sad….

  • Mario Tanev

    I think a lot of people don’t stop to think that without motorized traffic, there would be no need for pretty much any traffic signals/signs and so on. So the laws as you say exist to accommodate motorized traffic.

  • Anonymous

    Your headline incorrectly says Oakland’s Green-Stripe sharrow is on 40th Ave. It is actually on 40th St.

    If you are wondering how to tell the difference between 40th Ave and 40th St:
    40th Ave has 15 mph traffic calming thanks to speed humps. 40th St, on the other hand, gets this green-stripe-of-stupidity that does nothing to calm traffic.

  • justin

    I meant the laws that do exist for safety, like yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks and stopping at red lights. These apply to bikes and cars alike, and bicyclists flaunting them wipes out any good will about “the issue that faces many riders”