Today’s Headlines

  • SF Chronicle Op-Ed From Ed Reiskin and SFDPH Chief: Vision Zero is “Preventative Medicine”
  • Wiggle Advocate Cancels “Refereeing” of Right-Of-Way Violators After Stanley Roberts Shows Up
  • Uber Driver Who Ran Down Man on Bike Forfeits Drivers License (KTVU)
  • More on the Boy Hit By Driver in Bayview (Appeal), Woman, 25, Hit at 7th & Townsend (Appeal)
  • Richmond Students Get Police Escort for Bike and Roll to School Week Ride (Richmond SF)
  • Van Ness to Partially Close to Cars Again This Weekend for CPMC Hospital Construction (SFBay)
  • McCoppin Hub Re-Opens With Earth Day Event After Being Fenced Off for Two Weeks (Mission Local)
  • Petitioners Make Their Case Against Muni 33-Stanyan Re-Route to El Tecolote
  • SPUR Workshop Attendees Explore Better Design for Transit Wayfinding
  • New AC Transit Buses to Have Air Conditioning (Mercury News)
  • Walnut Creek Conquers Drivers’ Biggest Unknown: When the Traffic Light Will Change (NBC, ABC)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • lunartree

    Does anyone know of a counter petition for the 33 bus change? Because this route would be so much more useful if they go through with the change.

  • murphstahoe

    Love ya Morgan, but you played that one all wrong.

  • Nicasio Nakamine

    Not a good segment for anyone involved. Stanley comes off as slimy-er than usual as well.

  • murphstahoe

    I find it very odd that the judge thinks he is doing something meaningful by pulling the drivers license of the uber driver.

    He compared the situation to someone using a gun – but we don’t offer a reduction in bail to anyone who shoots someone with a gun if they surrender their weapons permit. He committed a violent crime and it should be treated exactly as any other violent crime regardless of weapon. Especially since unlike gun, nobody will really notice if this guy gets in a car anyway. He’ll go to jail if he drives without the license, then again he presumably knew he would go to jail for running someone over intentionally and he did it anyway.

    And why aren’t judges so quick to pull the licenses of people who are otherwise law abiding but simply incapable of properly operating a motor vehicle.

  • Agree this was a well-meaning attempt to make an important point, that bicycles have different infrastructure needs than cars, but it ended up backfiring entirely.

    This is why we have media-trained spokespeople representing us through the SFBC and CalBC.

  • SF Guest

    Judge Flores stated he felt the original $75K bail was too low so he gave him a choice of $250K bail or keep his $75K bail and surrender his driver’s license. Decarvalho chose to surrender his license along with the lower bail.

  • murphstahoe

    I understand what he did. I just don’t understand why he considers surrendering his license a meaningful “increase in bail”

  • SF Guest

    Judge Flores may regard the original $75K bail commensurate to negligent driving whereas this case involves using his car to intentionally cause bodily harm. It would be considered a meaningful ‘increase in bail’ if the accused who has an anger management issue is barred from having access to an instrument which may be used as a deadly weapon. If Decarvalho has a history of using his car as a deadly weapon the bail would have automatically been set substantially higher.

  • murphstahoe

    if the accused who has an anger management issue is barred from having access to an instrument which may be used as a deadly weapon.

    The requirement to drive a car is
    1) a car
    2) the keys to the car

    A license is just a piece of plastic. Of course, if he gets caught he will probably go to jail. Then again, if he intentionally drives over someone he goes to jail, but he did that anyway, didn’t he.

    https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyRwyDpV7WMAllcnnIlQ;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY4NwRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwNARncHJpZAM5SVd5Z1VjaVFyeWJ1QUo0TEZ6NDBBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMxBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzM1BHF1ZXJ5A2RyaXZlciB3aXRoIHN1c3BlbmRlZCBsaWNlbnNlIGtpbGxzBHRfc3RtcAMxNDI5OTE1Nzgy?p=driver+with+suspended+license+kills&fr2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004

  • SF Guest

    In order to get that piece of plastic you also need to pass a vision, a written test and driver’s exam. The driver’s exam normally includes parking competently in a large space, but since parking spaces in SF are HTF that part of the test is usually bypassed.

    You will be dinged for simply looking in the wrong mirror while parallel parking.

  • murphstahoe

    right, but you don’t need to have a license to drive a car.

  • He totally had a chance to get Stanley to show law-abiding, safety-conscious but law-breaking, and safety-ignoring cyclists and drivers. A forum for a dialog. Sure Stanley will point out that the law-breakers are breaking the law, but even Stanley admits to Behaving Badly himself, at least the camera could have been on the behaviors to see what is and isn’t a threat or a ‘theft of right-of-way’ crap-move.

    As it is we just got to see 2 bikes and 6 cars break the law.

  • murphstahoe

    Several cars in the frame run red lights.

    I might have said “well, it’s not a very unsafe behavior, but some people just hate cyclists for no particular reason, so when they see them run a stop sign they get very angry regardless of whether or not it’s safe. So we might discuss with cyclists that if they don’t run the stop signs, maybe this group of people who just hate cyclists for no rational reason will mellow out. Of course, since we know those people are irrational, they’ll probably start deciding that people who bike eat so many burritos that cycling is worse for the environment than driving a car, so there’s really not much we can do – it’s sort of a pointless exercise. But I figured if I bought a bunch of donuts and borrowed a referee shirt, I could get Stanley Roberts to come out to the wiggle and eat donuts with me at the very least, and then I can get on TV. I presume you’re an apple fritter guy, Stanley, am I right?”

  • murphstahoe

    Here’s a new bike lane – actually it used to be unpainted and a little less useful before the repaving project. But here’s the really crazy part – just at the top end of the photo – a *roundabout* is being installed. Shocking – this is America – Windsor, Ca.

  • davistrain

    The old comparison between firearms and motor vehicles–guns are weapons, designed for one thing, putting holes in targets, animals or people. Cars are a means of transportation, designed for moving people and goods from place to place. As far as being “deadly weapons” we could say the same thing about certain sporting goods such as baseball bats.

  • murphstahoe
  • BK

    He comes off even slimier in the YouTube comments.

    Keep it classy, Stanley

  • Morgan Fitzgibbons

    I disagree. You’ve obviously never dealt with the media. If I would have stayed and participated we would have had 3 separate segments on TV about how cyclists are so bad on the Wiggle that they need a ref to keep the peace which is of course not at all the point I was making.

    There was nothing I could do or say to shift them off that narrative. No there was no chance to talk about how most people are law-abiding and a few people are safety-ignoring. Sure I could have talked about it but at the end of the day they go home and cut the footage how they want.

    The only option was to walk away and not participate and let Stanley turn it in to a piece about how I got scared. What’s so bad about that? Plus I got to point out the distinction between conscientious but law-breaking riders and assholes. The only reason he ran that is because that’s all I said to him.

  • Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Totally disagree.

  • SF Guest

    That’s how I feel for those who own guns.

  • dat

    “You’ve obviously never dealt with the media.”

    That’s a lot of presumptuousness there.

  • Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Fair enough. I just think if you think there was an opportunity to craft a message a more positive message for cyclists then you don’t understand that TV media has their own agenda and is going to shape it their way 100% of the time.

  • dat

    That is a much more constructive post from you. It comes across as less condescending too, which is better also. You speak of ‘crafting a message’ which shows concern for how the message is perceived. I would like it if you thought about your comments to others on this site as much as they often come across as combative and ‘in your face’. If you reread your previous comments here I suspect you’ll see why you can be perceived as abrasive. Something about more flies with honey than with vinegar.