Today’s Headlines

  • SFBC Board Rescinds Change to Bylaws, Allowing Members to Vote in Board Election (SF Examiner)
  • Transbay Transit Center Costs Jump $247M (SFGate), Yet Underground Ped Tunnel Unfunded (GJEL)
  • SF State Students Get Ready for Muni Service Increases, Route Changes (Golden Gate Express)
  • Photo: Parking Enforcement Officer Parked on Geary Sidewalk in Richmond District
  • Officials Discuss Ferry Expansion Plans (KQED Forum); GG Ferry Could Operate Tiburon-SF (Marin IJ)
  • Many AC Transit Buses Lack Air Conditioning, as Heat Wave Reminds Riders (EB Express, KRON)
  • San Leandro Boy, 10, Walking Bike in Crosswalk Seriously Injured By Driver “Blinded By Sun” (ABC)
  • 69-Year-Old Man Killed in Alameda Crosswalk Was an Oakland Blues, Jazz Legend (CBS)
  • Op-Ed: Oakland’s Development and Parking Policies Stuck in the 20th Century (East Bay Express)
  • Retired Berkeley Firefighter: Limit Parking on Narrow Streets for Emergency Access (Berkeleyside)
  • As Soon as Paint Dries, Redwood City Drivers Complain About Road Diet on Farm Hill Boulevard (NBC)
  • VTA Wants to Widen Hwy 680, Improve Bike Crossings in Milpitas; Public Meeting Tonight (Cyclelicious)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • gary

    // San Leandro Boy, 10, Walking Bike in Crosswalk Seriously Injured By Driver “Blinded By Sun”//

    So anytime you run over someone when the sun is out, you can say “blinded by the sun” and walk away free?

  • As long as the DMV gave you a driver’s license to kill, you’re fine!

  • murphstahoe

    2 Middle school students were run over in a crosswalk in Rohnert Park.

    This same crosswalk claimed the life of Calli Murray. The parents of Calli Murray decided not to sue Rohnert Park, and we get more of the same.

  • Jeremy

    Falletti’s delivery drivers blocking the bike lane. Almost every day. Please call the number to report about their “safety”.

  • jd_x

    And the inane comments from officials continue with the usual victim-blaming and *zero* discussion about actually changing the road design to make it safer and increase enforcement:

    “Haley said that he would discuss with staff how to reinforce safety messages to students, many of whom use crosswalks without stop signs and stop lights that require extra caution. ”

    Yes, let’s tell the students to be careful but say absolutely zip about motorists, the ones doing the killing and maiming. This is nothing but a symptom of Addiction to Cars syndrome.

  • gary

    So it appears! this stuff makes me so mad, a person is maimed for life or killed while the killer goes on with life as usual.

  • caryl

    Not only that, but apparently the police think the moral of this story is that even people walking in a crosswalk should be wearing helmets:
    “Meanwhile, police are calling this accident the perfect example for why bicyclists should wear a helmet.”

    Shouldn’t the moral be that when you can’t see, you should, at the very least, slow down? Did the driver even take their foot off the gas pedal when they were ‘blinded’? It seems the police interpret the basic speed law to mean that you can drive the posted speed limit regardless of the conditions. I would think if you can’t see right in front of you, the speed limit should be 0.

  • PaleoBruce

    “Addition to Cars” Americans love cars mostly because they have no other choice.

  • JJ94117

    Isn’t there a driving too fast for conditions clause? Would this not apply, even though the driver was going “only” 25mph?

  • mx

    I’m not saying that blocking the bike lane is ok (because it’s not), but where should they park to deliver the groceries to the store?

  • Jeremy

    They have a loading dock on Oak street, which I’ve never seen used. It would be easy to create a yellow loading zone there, but that might take away some vehicle parking. The horror.

  • Doot-Doot-do-doooooo.

    Bicycle Man is here to solve all of your traffic and logistical problems!

    Once Bicycle Man was just a lowely pedestrian, solving the minor problems of “Where am I supposed to park?” and “Where am I supposed to put my tables and chairs?” for drivers and restaurant owners. But after a drunken encounter with a pile of tubes and a welder he was reborn as Bicycle Man!


    Now, good citizen, just bring any problem you are having, drop it off in the bicycle lane, and Bicycle Man will rush to the rescue.

    “Where should I park my truck?”
    ‘A loading zone. A regular traffic lane. A parking lot of the store. There are many options.’

    “Where should I illegally dump this couch and demolition materials?”
    ‘At a legal dump or drop off area. Here I will lend you my iPhone and Siri will direct you. Or perhaps that empty lot over there which will not obstruct pedestrians and vehicles of all sorts. Not here.’

    “Why did I lose my job?”
    ‘Too much trolling on the internet while at work.’

    If you’re having one of those infomercial moments, just throw your hands up in the air, give up, and bring it to the bike lane. Not the sidewalk, not other traffic lanes, Bicycle Man will solve all problems that you dump…*hands on hips, majestic pan* … in the bicycle lane.

  • ggrim

    And that was on the drivers word, and the cop bought it.

  • jonobate

    No, Americans love their cars because compared to other countries driving is cheap and convenient. Claiming that they have “no choice” is just a way to avoid the problem.

    It’s also irrelevent to the point jd_x is making. You can love your car and still be a safer, more attentive driver. Of course, it helps if public officials use their position to send the message that need drivers to be more attentive, and if traffic engineers design roads in a manner which encourages safer driving.

  • shamelessly

    From the photo, it looks like the truck is parked just after the bike lane ends, where the sharrows start. I agree that it’s not ideal and I’d like to seem them using a designated loading zone that’s not also a bike route, but it looks like they’re respecting the street as currently designed — at least in this instance. I bike this route regularly, but haven’t experienced these trucks myself.

  • PaleoBruce

    We are talking about human beings, being “more attentive” is a laudable goal but unlikely in real world practice. Like you said, traffic engineers can help design roads that increase safety through passive measures. And they can design transportation infrastructure that provide another cheap and convenient choice to the automobile.

  • mx

    Wow that loading dock (into the garage) is more of a cosmetic feature to say that they have one rather than anything anybody could actually use. You’d block the entire sidewalk and part of the street if you tried to use it too.

    I agree a yellow loading zone (perhaps with limited hours to cover the times when deliveries arrive) would make the most sense.

  • jonobate

    Aside from the relatively simple mechanics of operating the vehicle, the entire process of learning to drive is teaching people to be more attentive to their surroundings in order to avoid accidents with pedestrians other road users. People pass the driving test by learning to be more attentive, something you claim isn’t possible. If you think people are not capable of learning to be more attentive, you’ve given up on task of reducing traffic deaths before you’ve even started.

  • mx

    Um, wow. Thanks, I think.

    I honestly wasn’t trying to troll. I simply feel that both people who want unobstructed bike lanes (I am among those people) and people who want groceries inside of grocery stores (I am also among those people) have equally valid needs and that both should accommodated safely.

    I do think the city needs to continue to take an active role in the design phase of projects to ensure that proper loading space is available for deliveries to avoid situations like this, but it’s also difficult when streets are improved and existing businesses need to find another way. There are things we can do to help though, like yellow zones (and actual enforcement!) on side streets.

  • Prinzrob

    Actually, the driver responsible for this crash didn’t have a license, according to the article.

  • Prinzrob

    The ABC7 story actually mis-reported that the San Leandro PD found “no fault”. The Nixle report indicated that the driver was found at fault and criminal charges are being investigated:

    Also of note, apparently the driver was unlicensed, which probably also means uninsured.

  • gneiss

    The boy wasn’t even riding his bicycle in the crosswalk – he was walking with it. They are acting totally on reflex without thinking about context here. Only if they are arguing that it makes sense to wear a helmet while walking across the street should they be making any comment whatsoever about whether or not the boy was wearing a helmet.

  • gneiss

    That they devoted two statements to the fact that he was wearing a helmet makes me sick. The boy was walking across the crosswalk. Are they trying to argue that every person who walks to school should now be wearing a helmet? It just boggles the mind how much of windshield perspective is shown in this press release.

  • murphstahoe

    sharrows? The bike lane continues, but it also becomes a turn lane… right?

    or not

  • shamelessly

    I’ve always assumed that bike lanes are bike lanes only on stretches where they are bikes-only, and I’ve assumed that they become standard traffic lanes at corners where they are also turn lanes for motor vehicles. Can anyone shed light?

  • lunartree

    Not only do they have a loading zone, but they have a dedicated parking lot on the other side of the building. There’s no excuse for them to do this. They’re just being lazy.

  • gneiss

    A bike lane remains a travel lane through an intersection, despite the fact that the lane markings become dashed. Here’s the relevant CVC information that describes what vehicles must do:

    And more from the Bicycle Coalition:

  • shamelessly

    Thank you for the research. Totally agree.

  • chetshome

    “travel lane through an intersection” Can I ask where you find that language? I’ve been trying to determine the legality of cars veering into the bike lane to pass cars waiting to turn left (e.g. Valencia at 17th). I assume the dashed-lines-merge-before-turning only applies to actual turns, but I can’t find it.

  • gneiss

    From the DMV: Check out the section When to take the Travel Lane

    “A bicycle lane is a designated traffic lane for bicyclists, marked by a solid white line, and typically breaking into a dotted line at the corner. A bicycle lane is different from a simple white line showing the edge of the road because it follows specific width requirements and is clearly marked as a bike lane.”

  • I didn’t say YOU were trolling. I don’t even know if you are gainfully employed.

    But, “well where am I supposed to park??” as if I’m supposed to solve the problem of someone else’s bad aim sometimes requires a hero.

  • RichLL

    I don’t think he means that. But rather that those who complain about vehicles double parking are often the same people who advocate for taking out parking as the solution for a variety of problems.

    And if parking is removed then that inevitably increases the risk of a vehicle parking where you might not want it to park.

    If I am delivering a washer/dryer to a location then is it really reasonable to expect me to park three blocks away and carry the thing?

  • murphstahoe

    OK, so let’s summarize. My choices are …

    No bike lane
    A bike lane that has double parkers.

  • chetshome

    Thanks. So that implies (since it’s a bicycle-only lane except for right-turning merges) that it’s illegal. But that’s just the DMV guide, right, which isn’t the actual vehicle code. I think the CVC says something about it being legal to go around a car waiting to turn left, so it seems it would come down to the interpretation that the bicycle-only travel lane can’t be used for passing. But it still doesn’t seem to be explicit.

  • RichLL

    Correct, but I think it depends exactly how the driver was “blinded”.

    If you are driving steadily into the sun (280-N in the south bay in the evening is bad for this) then you are aware of the impact of that on your vision. You’d wear sub-glasses, pull down the visor and slow down to maintain the required level of observation.

    But if you were suddenly and unexpectedly blinded, say by a reflection, or by high-beam headlights, that’s a different matter. It takes the eyes time to adjust to very different levels of light. You’d slow down but there would be a delay before full perception is restored.

    The critical question would be the extent to which the driver should reasonably have expected a sudden change in light conditions.

  • Sorry the photo’s blurry, but if drivers are going do double park, they should do so like this gent. By stopping in the outer traffic lane on Market he kept both the center traffic lane and bike lane open.

    He even put out a safety cone to warn drivers, there’s no reason other delivery drivers, cabbies, and anyone else driving a motor vehicle shouldn’t do the same.

  • jd_x

    “If I am delivering a washer/dryer to a location then is it really reasonable to expect me to park three blocks away and carry the thing? Or might it be reasonable to decide that the universe is less harmed by my briefly parking as close as possible for a much shorter period of time?”

    False choice because you are assuming our existing road design is the only way. Here’s another alternative: instead of providing at worst free and at best heavily subsidized parking, at the 1/3 and 2/3 points of each block and on each side there are designated loading zones instead of parking. At most, you would then have to walk 1/3 a block (okay, maybe 2/3 if the spot you wanted was taken). And you can vary this in areas that are more commercial (say at the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 points).

    But really, a business should not expect that they get a free loading zone provided by the city. Instead, if they need trucks to deliver goods, then they need to provide the space on their property. Imagine that: actually paying for the space one needs instead of expecting the city to pay for it (while also risking the safety of bicyclists).

    The previous solution (designated loading zones) is good for residential areas and can be used by mail delivery, residents loading/unloading their cars, delivery vehicles, cab/ride-hailing pick-ups, etc. It should be in-force 24-7. But for commercial zones, businesses should be responsible for providing their own loading infrastructure on their own property.

  • jd_x

    “Also of note, apparently the driver was unlicensed, which probably also means uninsured.”

    Ah-hah: I knew their was a catch as to why the police would actually go after the motorist because, god forbid a motorist can be blamed for hitting someone with the right of way because, you know, the sun (and not like that motorist could slow the hell down if they can’t see). Like they say, the best way to get away with murder is hit them with a car and say you didn’t see them … unless you’re drunk and/or flee the scene. Well, we can add to that: or are unlicensed/uninsured. For otherwise, this would just be a tragic “accident” and the police would remind all of us how we need to careful walking in the crosswalk.

  • Or just “park” cross-wise in the middle of the street, blocking all car lanes. When drivers complain, just explain that the universe is better this way (for you).