Monday: Your Chance to Speak on the Bike Yield Law

On Monday at 1:30 p.m., the land use and transportation committee of the SF Board of Supervisors is going to discuss the Bike Yield Law at City Hall. This is an important opportunity to speak up for common-sense bike and traffic enforcement policies.

A new law would discourage cops from ticketing cyclists who cautiously and courteously roll through stop signs. Photo: Aaron Bialick
A new law would discourage cops from ticketing cyclists who cautiously and courteously roll through stop signs. Photo: Aaron Bialick

The ordinance would instruct San Francisco police to, in practice, adopt an “Idaho Stop” policy — meaning cyclists could treat a stop sign as a yield.

City Hall can’t actually change California’s stop sign law. But with this ordinance the city can tell SFPD that citing cyclists who roll cautiously and courteously through stop signs should be the lowest possible priority.

SFPD’s current approach to bike enforcement is exemplified by the recurring harassment and selective ticketing of cyclists on the Wiggle by officers under the command of Park Station Caption John Sanford.

“It’s not saying that cyclists are above the law,” explained Ivy Lee, a staffer for Supervisor Jane Kim, who supports the law. “It’s just applying common sense — our cops have more important things to do.”

The Bike Yield Law has six co-sponsors, including Kim, but Mayor Lee has vowed to veto it. It will take two more supervisors to override his veto.

The hearing will be held Monday at City Hall, Room 250.

Whether you can make it to City Hall or not, it’s a good idea to contact your supervisor.

  • Izsak

    Right, but you need to get out in advance of it. Relaxing enforcement is not going to make people more likely to yield, it’s going to make them less likely. In my opinion.

  • @murphstahoe – His “facts” are way beyond not in evidence. They gloss right over an entire body of law and a parallel justice system designed to cope with the overwhelming quantity of lawbreaking done by motorists.

  • @Alicia – Really, this is just anecdotes vs. data. The data don’t support his arguments and emphasis (by a few orders of magnitude), so he “has to trust” anecdotes. The same dynamic underlies his “we don’t need no steenking citations” stance.

  • Alicia

    The bs is 85% of what comes out of cyclists mouths in comments’ forums.

    And yet, you can’t point out just which statement is false (or “BS.”) You’re just flailing around.

    I’m not looking up injury data b/c it’s not my struggle

    Translation: because you know it won’t help your point.

  • Dave Moore

    Murph: you make a good point about the rules the police would follow, but to my mind it’s easier to message the public that one area, with signs, has new rules and then, if you decide to change it, to remove those signs then to tell them that there are new rules everywhere twice

    Jym: isn’t it better to try something in one spot, and observe, measure and perhaps alter your approach before rolling it out everywhere? You might even run cameras on the intersections and see how people (cyclists, drivers, pedestrians) behave

  • Izsak

    You are a troll, but:

    JUST READ EVERYTHING CYCLISTS ARE SAYING ON THIS FORUM, STREETSBLOG and ELSEWHERE. THAT’S THE BS I’M REFERRING TO. IN ALL HONESTY I REALLY DON’T CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THIS ISSUE TO ARGUE WITH YOU MENTALLY IMPAIRED BIKE LOBBY PEOPLE ANYMORE. DID NOT REALIZE I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND THREE DAYS STRAIGHT EXPLAINING WHY YOU NEED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN. BLOW IT OUT YOUR A**, CRAZY LADY.

  • Alicia

    You are a troll,

    I love it when trolls engage in projection.

  • Izsak

    In essence, nobody cares about this ‘issue’ except for cyclists. And it gets tiresome having to explain simple concepts like a Stop sign to self-interested cyclists. Izsak out.

  • Alicia

    In essence, nobody cares about this ‘issue’ except for cyclists.

    Yeah, you care so little that you visit this site repeatedly to troll here and derail conversations.

  • Izsak

    I’m just trying to check out. If you are interested in my thoughts, please reference my exchanges with other cyclists in this forum.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

“Bike Yield” Passes Without Enough Votes for Veto Override

|
The Bike Yield ordinance was heard by the full San Francisco Board of Supervisors yesterday. It passed, with six “ayes” and five against — two “ayes” short of what’s needed to override Mayor Edwin Lee’s veto pen. The San Francisco Examiner reports that mayoral spokesperson Christine Falvey was ready with a response. “The mayor believes this endangers pedestrians […]

Mayor Lee Vows to Veto Bike Yield Law

|
Updated at 6:46 p.m. with image of Mayor’s veto letter at the bottom. Mayor Ed Lee has vowed to veto the “Bike Yield Law” put forward by six supervisors. Assuming the mayor follows through, it will take a vote from eight of the 11 supervisors to override him. In a comment to the SF Chronicle, Lee showed that […]

Mayor Vetoes Bike Yield But Advocates Must Never Yield to Regressive Politics

|
Mayor Edwin Lee officially vetoed the “Bike Yield” ordinance yesterday. Without enough votes to override, supporting supervisors will have to figure out a compromise plan, such as a pilot project. The bill’s author, Supervisor John Avalos, already prepared for that contingency. Not surprisingly, Avalos was frustrated with the Mayor’s veto. “SFPD has focused traffic enforcement […]

Majority of Supes Back the “Bike Yield Law” to Be Introduced Tomorrow

|
The “Bike Yield Law” proposed by Supervisor John Avalos is poised to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance urges the SFPD to let bicycle riders safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Avalos plans to introduce the ordinance tomorrow, and it has support from six supervisors — the majority needed to vote it into law. It’s unclear if it has support from SFPD […]