Today’s Headlines

  • BART Operator Assaulted (SFWeekly)
  • Smoke in Civic Center Station (SFExaminer)
  • More on New Scooter Rules (Curbed)
  • GoBike in the Bayview (Curbed)
  • Driver in Fatal SoMa Crash Appears in Court (SFBay)
  • Alamo Square Art (Hoodline)
  • Winter Park at Civic Center (SFChron)
  • Who’s in Charge of Lake Merced? (SFExaminer)
  • SF Sues Over Alleged Building Codes Cheat (Curbed)
  • Letter: Good Samaritan on BART (MercNews)
  • Commentary: Don’t Roll Back Emissions Rules (SFChron)
  • Commentary: Hating Caltrans Not Reason to Repeal Gas Tax (SacBee)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA, national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Jeffrey Baker

    BART has been all up on Twitter downplaying the explosion of their insulator in the subway but the fact is BART stopped cleaning the insulators 15 years ago, and when you don’t clean them they arc over, from being covered in conductive dust. It’s a common and preventable failure mode. Maintenance is _supposedly_ why BART can’t be open all night.

  • david vartanoff

    And half hourly service could easily be run with the insulator cleaning in between.

  • mx
  • Wallaby

    Cyclist killed in Australia. Wearing black clothing and riding a dark colored bike at night deemed to be the cause:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/24/mike-hall-british-distance-cyclist-in-hunger-games-on-wheels-when-killed

  • david vartanoff

    Muni triumphs again. What will it take to make them actually perform? note sentence below
    “…will monitor…and make any necessary adjustments to balance the system.”
    This is precisely what they refuse to do in PM rush at Embarcadero leading to unnecessary crowds on the platforms.

  • RichLL Commentary Track

    Congratulations to those of you who immediately recognized me under my new name. My fake embarcadero account had accrued enough bad reputation and comment deletions here that I felt it was time to move on.

    I admit that coming out of the gate with a comment that has nothing to do with SF and does nothing but blame a cyclist for being hit by a car isn’t the most subtle launch of a fresh identity but after all I am still me. No matter how many times I change my name I can’t change my deep-seated need to attack cycling.

  • Wallaby

    I am still seeing embarcadero’s comments everywhere so not sure you are right about your claim for “deletions”.

    Anything to say on the topic?

  • Wallaby

    BART’s farebox recovery rate is actually half decent for a public transit system. Running it all night would doubtless make a big hole in that. Do you have any evidence that the voters and taxpayers want that?

  • RichLL Commentary Track

    I jest of course! I am always right about everything. No one can refute it.

    I hope loyal fans were able to appreciate my work on recent articles before my comments there were removed.
    https://sf.streetsblog.org/2018/09/17/how-long-will-rapid-response-team-take-to-fix-deadly-crosswalk/
    https://sf.streetsblog.org/2018/09/14/guest-commentary-before-breed-axes-transit-chief-crucial-changes-needed-at-city-hall/
    https://sf.streetsblog.org/2018/09/06/guest-commentary-enough-delays-valencia-street-needs-a-protected-bike-lane-this-year/

    This time my account wasn’t banned entirely so my previous work with this account is still available for your enjoyment.

    Naturally the fact that my comments were deleted from only some articles is further evidence of how much the Streetsblog editors love and admire me. What stronger endorsement of my contributions to the site could they offer than banning only some of my accounts and deleting only some of my comments?

  • Wallaby

    I do not read old topics so cannot comment on whose comments might have been removed or why. Suffice to say that I am discussing the topic here and you are engaged in personal attacks. I would predict that your comments are therefore more likely to be removed than mine.

    Anything to say about the topic? What can we learn from the cited incident about how we can all be safer out there?

  • p_chazz

    Somebody who follows a poster around to “out” them when the allegedly assume a new identity around has WAAAY too much time on his or her hands. Just sayin’…

  • p_chazz

    They should have taken Uber.

  • p_chazz

    Can you imagine the mayhem on a 4 AM BART train, not to mention the sleeping homeless? It would be like a shelter on wheels. Even if it ran all night, I’d be scared to take it. It’s bad enough during the day.

  • Wallaby

    It’s OK, I take it as a sign of fear and respect.

    But yes, some do not enjoy free speech and a diversity of ideas, and prefer stalking and censorship.

  • Exactly. Ditto for reduced subway service in the tunnel during PM rush when a Giants game is going on.

    40 minute wait for outbound K last night at Montgomery station versus BART train in 1 minute. Imagine how many people would take public transit if we actually had a real subway system in place. Over an hour to get to Balboa Park via Muni. 12 minutes on BART.

  • SF_Abe

    I enjoy free speech. Your speech seems, somehow, cheaper.

  • SF_Abe

    Omigod! Crushed by their own clothing!

  • Wallaby

    No, crushed by a driver who the cops say could not see the cyclist because of his failure to wear visible clothing.

  • SF_Abe

    Yikes! Driving when you can’t see what’s in front of you?! Sounds like someone forgot to turn on their headlights or look where they were going or drive at a safe speed or take responsibility for their own actions.

  • Wallaby

    No, it’s more a matter of someone wearing black at night being much harder to see.

    To drive in a way to see a person camouflaging themselves in such a way would probably require driving at less than 5 mph

    Cyclists need to “take responsibility for their own actions” too.

  • SF_Abe

    It sounds like a cyclist wearing dark clothing is responsible for the damage they cause with their bikes and bodies (and the clothes thereon).

    It sounds like a motorist is responsible for the damage they cause with their car and their bodies (and, of course, their clothes— which seems unlikely, but let’s apply responsibility equally).

    It also sounds like some motorists (who may or may not have marsupial screen names) want to operate their cars at dangerous speeds without shouldering responsibility for the danger that poses. Instead, the motorist asks everyone else to modify their behavior for the motorist’s convenience.

  • Wallaby

    You are over-complicating a simple matter. As the cops concluded, the cyclist dressed n a way that made him very hard to see at night, and that cost him his life.

    Why on earth would you argue to not be easily seen?

  • SF_Abe

    why would you force everyone to dress a certain way just so you could drive fast without paying attention?

  • Wallaby

    It is common sense that any road user would want to be easily seen.

    “Why do you want to be invisible?” is a better question.

  • SF_Abe

    Not all people volunteer to be road users. Sometimes we’re just people. It’s foolish to expect everyone else to accommodate your behavior. It makes way more sense to bear the responsibility for your own actions. If you operate heavy machinery you must do it in a way that does not endanger anyone else— simple as that. Doing something dangerous and then blaming the person who gets hurt (who didn’t know you or what you were doing and didn’t agree to it) is reckless. Plain and simple.

    And again, I’ve never seen clothes that render a person invisible. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever actually been invisible, that’s just a term people use instead of “I wasn’t looking hard enough.”

    Headlights are important if you’re operating at even moderate speeds, and essential at higher speeds. It’s part of that “responsible for one’s own actions” thingy.

  • Wallaby

    Well if you walking or riding a bike on the highway, and you have no lights, no reflective items and your clothing is all black AND you are killed by a car, no court in the land would find the driver at fault, as in the cited case.

    So you are entitled to your bizarre view that you do not have to do anything that improves visibility, but you won’t find a court or jury that will agree with you.

    Seems you have a death wish.

  • SF_Abe

    I’m not talking about courts, I’m talking about what’s right and true. Yes, our society absolves motorists of their responsibility at almost every opportunity— but that doesn’t make it right.

  • Wallaby

    That may be “right and true” to you but pretty much every cop, driver, voter and juror disagrees with you, and holds you partially responsible for being visible.