SFMTA Board Director Cheryl Brinkman Doesn’t Know What the Fuck She’s Talking About, Or Something

[UPDATE: A fire truck just hit a pedestrian. Let's now investigate whether the driver was driving as if he or she has "no family" that loves him or her and no one that he or she loves. And, oh yes, let's also investigate whether the pedestrian was walking as if he has "no family" that loves him and no one that he loves. And let's get more fire trucks out there, driven by aging women, ideally. You know, to set an example.]

Well, let’s see here, in just 24 hours, SFMTA Board Director Cheryl Brinkman has become Internet Famous.

See?

Does she live on Mars? Does she live in a bubble? Let’s take a look:

“Cyclists violating the pedestrian right of way is what I hear about most often in response to any discussion about adding cycling infrastructure.”

Uh maybe you’re listening to the wrong people? Adding cycling infrastructure comes at the expense of something, right? What you need to focus on is the Commonweal, not individuals or pressure groups.

It is such a tough issue; are cyclists being held to a higher standard then car drivers, or is it the nature of the violations that catch people’s attention?

What planet do you live on? In what way, shape, or form are cyclists ever held to a higher standard “then” car drivers in San Francisco? Your question is absurd if you’re talking about San Francisco County, which, you know, should be your focus, right? And the “nature of this particular violation” is that the pedestrian died. It “caught attention” because the pedestrian died. It got covered as if it were a car vs. ped death – check it.

It’s not hard for a cyclist to stop at a crosswalk, and cyclists should treat pedestrians the way they wish car drivers would treat them, but the answer is not to wish for fewer cyclists, or to deny bike improvements.

Who is wishing for fewer cyclists? Who is denying bike improvements? Isn’t your job fundamentally about the allocation of scarce resources? I think it is.

I think the answer is to add more cyclists, particularly females in their 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond

Uhhhhhhhhh….

The more women of a certain age we have out there the more we take the macho out of cycling. 

There’s “macho” in cycling? Really?

We change it from the few and the brave, to an everyday mainstream activity. 

Cycling isn’t an everyday mainstream activity right now?

As Gil Penalosa said, some of the men out there on bikes ride as if they have no family that loves them and no one that they love.

Let’s see here, how would test this hypothesis? Control Group A would be made up of dudes with families and proven results from LoveMeter testing. And then Control Group B would be made up of, I don’t know, orphans or something? And then we’d follow them around, looking for violations.

If you’ve ever been in a country with a recent surge in automobile ownership you see similar behavior.  The first drivers and owners tend to be men and they tend to drive like aggressive idiots.  

Extensively traveled have we? Teach us oh Great Teacher of the fucking pathetic SFMTA, the worst-run agency in town, the people who bring us MUNI. Hellooooo? Are you in graduate school? Are you writing for IndyBay?

We have created a culture of road warriors on bikes due to our lack of infrastructure and I think they only way to tame it is to add more bikes and more infrastructure. 

You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. How did you get your position?

That ill-behaved cyclist will not be able to violate the pedestrian right of way when he is stuck behind 20 or 30 other cyclists at the light. 

So, you want a 30-fold increase in cycling on the morning drive? So let’s think here – anytime somebody dies, it presents an opportunity for you to ride your hobby horse, is that how things work?

And he will learn that he is part of the mainstream and there is nothing macho about riding a bike in this city.

Who said there’s something macho about riding a bike in San Francisco?

I don’t know, somehow, Cheryl Brinkman, your screed got typed up and broadcast on the web.

Whatever goals you have in life, this kind of thing isn’t helping you.

Just saying, Bro.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “SFMTA Board Director Cheryl Brinkman Doesn’t Know What the Fuck She’s Talking About, Or Something”

  1. Jacob says:

    If biking is sufficiently dangerous that you’d have to be reckless to do it… then yeah, you’re gonna get reckless bikers.

  2. sfcitizen says:

    Well perhaps – but do you think that it’s “reckless” to ride a bicycle in San Francisco right now? I don’t

  3. triple0 says:

    Wow. So angry.

    1) You say: “Uh maybe you’re listening to the wrong people? … In what way, shape, or form are cyclists ever held to a higher standard “then” car drivers in San Francisco?

    At MTA Board Meetings Public Comment, people often argue that the city shouldn’t build bike lanes or invest in biking because bike riders break laws. This argument is not used for projects that benefit car drivers.

    2) You say: “You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.” to Ms. Brinkman’s comment that “We have created a culture of road warriors on bikes due to our lack of infrastructure”

    Today, most SF streets are either built without a bike rider in mind (10-foot lanes, lights timed for 25 MPH). Since the 70′s the city has added a 5-foot space between doors swinging open and high-speed traffic on about 40 miles of the 1,000+ miles of streets — which leaves only the courageous to bike.

    So, her argument is: SF built more bikeways. By building a city where less courageous (Penalosa calls them ‘interested but concerned’) people felt OK biking, then the population of cyclists would include more polite, timid riders.

    Meaning, the average rider would be a higher percentage women, since females are less-likely to take the same risks men do, and every biking survey by SFBC or MTA shows women are less likely to ride due to safety concerns.

    Then, everybody on a bike will be much less likely to tear-ass down the street, because the general bike ‘culture’ while be shifted to a more even-paced polite population.

    Really, it’s a pretty logical argument – not sure why you are so huffy about it.

  4. Rob Anderson says:

    Women don’t ride bikes as much as guys because they have more sense than guys.
    http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2011/07/women-and-bikes.html

    Brinkman is a bike gal who’s also anti-car. That a cyclist could actually kill a pedestrian is a new concept to her. In her statement she wanted to pretend to show some sympathy for the victim while plugging bikes and knocking cars. Hence, nothing but a muddle.