Posts Tagged ‘accident’

Tour de France, Tour de Manche – Pedaling Downhill Through the Golden Gate Park Panhandle as Fast as You Can – Why?

Thursday, July 23rd, 2015

Just asking, Bro.

What’s the speed limit on the Panhandle bike path? What should it be?

How fast do you think you can go heading west downhill on this bike path, with you out of the saddle, on your expensive lightweight bike, with skinny high-pressure tires, with your muscular thighs, with a strong tailwind? Bro, you’re going faster than anyone – what’s the point? You’re at the 99th percentile, or 99.9th, something like that, right?

7J7C1297 copy

By this point, Bro wasn’t pedaling no mo, ’cause he prolly could see that traffic on Masonic was going to slow his progress anyway. But he wasn’t racing for a light, he was racing along for no apparent reason. Strava, perhaps?

Realize that this path passes over what functions as the sidewalks of Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, etc.

Should SFGov post speed limit signs? Mmmm…

Hey, you know what’s funny? Some people want, effectively, to kick peds off this Panhandle multi-use trail. “Go use the pedestrian path on the south side of the Panhandle [near Oak]” they say.

Is that the right way to look at things?

I think not.

Anyway, that’s the ‘sperpective of somebody who uses bikes to get around, as opposed to using bikes to race around…

This is What an SFPD Pedestrian Enforcement Action Looks Like at Oak and Masonic, Where Peds are Injuring Themselves Lately

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015

The past few months we’ve had at least three jaywalkers/jayjoggers blow across Masonic on the north side of Oak against the ped signal only to end up getting hit and injured by a vehicle.

Therefore, Park Station had a pedestrian-focused enforcement action* a few days ago.

Here you go, here’s a Stanfoo grad hopping down the bunny trail – right past a cop and into traffic about 15 seconds too late (assuming you’re legally allowed to run into a crosswalk, even with a green**):

P1260182 copy

Guess what – no ticket for her. Not even a warning. (Dude just told me he was specifically out there to hand out tickets, oh well. Maybe he was saving his energy for more flagrant violations, IDK)

Oh, here we go – here’s a ped red citation on the south side of Oak:

P1260198 copy

On It Goes…

*I’ll tell you, I’ve never seen an SFPD ped-only enforcement action in all my quarter-century plus on the Streets of San Francisco. I’ve seen numerous cyclist-focused and driver-focused actions, but never for peds. 

**There are nuances here. Is this crosswalk part of a “wilderness trail” ala Masonic at nearby Fell? I know not. 

Not Complaining, Just Explaining: See How a Jogger Handles the Revised Intersection of OAK and MASONIC

Friday, June 5th, 2015

What you’ll see isn’t the world-famous Golden Gate Park Panhandle Bike Path – that’s on the north side, the Fell Street side. What you’ll see is the south side, the bike-free path near Oak.

Brocephus on the left here is jogging east and he’s way late – he missed his chance to enter the crosswalk on his green. OTOH, the taxi can enter the intersection.

7J7C8238 copy

No matter, here’s the jogger going more south than east, “jogging” around a Prius:

7J7C8244 copy

Hey, are you allowed to run into a crosswalk in CA? Uh, not really. And hey, isn’t this crosswalk excessively wide? Uh, yes it is.

7J7C8245 copy

By this time, the left turn arrow phase started and the jogger exited the intersection. A happy ending, I suppose.

7J7C8246 copy

This intersection now has three signal phases, for better or worse – people are still getting used to it.

The fundamental problem here has been that traffic backs up on the left side of Oak due to all the people who want to go north on Masonic -it’s kind of a bottleneck so that’s why we got the new left turn arrows.

If this jogger had been hit by a vehicle, the SFPD would have found him at fault, the same way it found the majority (50-something percent) of pedestrians at fault for their deaths last year, calendar 2014.

]If you say, well any struck pedestrian was “in the crosswalk,” well that’s pretty much useless as you’re not giving enough information to determine fault and, in fact, a pedestrian can be outside of a crosswalk, let’s say just outside, you know, close enough, and still be held not at fault for a collision, in California anyway. (This isn’t really a written-down law, it’s more of a case of judges following how other judges have ruled in the past.)

OTOH, you can be in the absolute middle of a crosswalk, as Brocephus was,  and be held at fault for your death / injury.

It all depends…

Hands-Free? Free to Do What, Spank Your Monkey? SFPD Says Porsche Driver’s Phone Sex Causes Collision with Tree

Tuesday, May 5th, 2015

I would Like this SFPD Facebook entry, but I don’t know how! (Isn’t that sad?)

Anyway, make up your own jokes here:

Capturefdfgfgg copy

INJURY TRAFFIC COLLISION
MLK & Chain of Lakes (Golden Gate Park)
04-25-2015 4:12 AM
A Porsche was traveling eastbound on MLK at an unsafe speed when the driver ran off the road and collided with a tree. He told officers that he was having a phone conversation of a sexual nature (it’s unknown whether this conversation was hands free as required by the vehicle code). He suffered major injuries and major damage to his car. He was cited for speeding and for driving with a suspended license.

A Sad End to a Road Bike – It Looks Like It’s Been Run Over by a MUNI Bus – Harvest Harvest Time

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

Severely taco’ed rear wheel and  kinked seat stays:

P1220530 copy

But as you can see, there’s nothing left to harvest, so there’s nothing left to do but wait for SFGov or the Recology monopoly to haul it off.

Any harvestable parts were probably gone within a half-hour…

Uh Oh, the SFPD’s Vaunted “Focus on the Five” Enforcement Program Focuses on the Wrong Five

Tuesday, February 24th, 2015

Work with me here, people.

Here you go:

“Focus on the Five – Using multi-year collision data, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is focusing on enforcing the five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking. The goal is to have half their traffic citations be for these five violations.”

All right, well let’s look at the stats for last year, via Heather Knight / the District 5 Diary.

And then let’s extract all the five-digit CVC section numbers cited in the official SFPD report, plus let’s also throw in a CVC number for the pedestrian who died last year after getting hit by a MUNI bus on Geary around Baker.

(And let’s ignore all the the lower-case subsections like 21950(b) and the like, treating 21950(a) and 21950(b) as the same violation, for example.)

And then lets throw all the extracted numbers into Excel for a Sorting.

And then let’s eyeball the numbers to separate them out:

Capturefsfssfggg copy

So those are your top “five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking (and bicycle riding, but I don’t think that affects the numbers too much.)

Here they are, in order of frequency:

21950

22350

21456

21954

21955

So how does that compare with this list from politicians?

“Focus on the 23 Five” campaign to target the top five causal factors of pedestrian crashes – running red lights 24 (California Vehicle Code 21453(a)), running stop signs (California Vehicle Code 22450(a)), violating pedestrian right-of-way (California Vehicle Code 21950(a)), failing to yield while 2 turning (California Vehicle Code 21801 (a), and speeding (California Vehicle Code 22350)…

See how that works? 21950 and 22350 are in there, but CVC violations on the part of pedestrians, like 21456, 21954, and 21955 have been omitted from the list.

Is the official “Focus on the Five” about pedestrian safety or “pedestrian rights?”

I’m thinking it’s about pedestrian rights, like the right to jaywalk, that kind of thing.

Is SFGov serious about SF Vision Zero 2024, a “program” that has the goal of ending all transportation deaths in San Francisco long after all the pols who voted for it have termed out?

Well, how can it be if it’s afraid to enforce traffic laws for political reasons?

If you want safety for pedestrians, wouldn’t you want them to be afraid of getting cited for jaywalking?

No? All right, well then keep on doing what you’re doing, but you’ll never ever achieve Vision Zero 2024 the way you’re going about it, SFGov.

(more…)

The Dashcams of Taiwan: Incredible Video of the Crash of Transasia Flight GE235 – Sullenberger-Style River Landing Saves Some Lives?

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015

Nothing goes unrecorded by the car dash cams of Taiwan:

TransAsia Airways Flight 235 looks to have lost a lot of power from its left engine. But assuming that the propeller blades of the failing engine were feathered to lessen drag, there’s no reason why a properly-loaded ATR 72 shouldn’t have been able to climb out to a safe altitude using the remaining engine.

There appears to be a lot of data recorded on this crash, so they mystery should be solved soon…

Spawning Salmon: The Horrible Pedestrians of the Rather Narrow Golden Gate Panhandle Bike Path

Thursday, January 29th, 2015

(Well, sure it’s not an actual bike-only path, it’s a multipurpose trail, or something. But most call it the bike path cause bike riders are allowed on it, as opposed to the ped-only path near Oak on the other side of the Panhandle.)

I’m a polite ped so I generally stay off the paved part* of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle bike path near Fell. This was my view of an impolite ped as I trod on the grass for a few blocks:

P1180873 copy

Click to expand

She spent most of her eastward journey smack dab in the middle of the westbound lane or smack dab in the middle of the trail on the dashed yellow line. This went on for minutes. Westbound cyclists didn’t know how to pass her, on the left or on the right. Occasionally she’d veer to the right side of the right lane, where she belonged, but that phase of her journey didn’t last too long.

So what was this, a cry for help? Yeah, sort of.

Who will hear her?

*Yeah, this bike path is wider (12 feet) than before (8 feet), but it’s still too narrow. 16 feet sounds right, considering. 

Jetta vs. Jetta Head-On at Turk and Stanyan Near USF the Night Before Classes Begin

Wednesday, January 28th, 2015

King-American hauled off to UC at least one Jetta occupant:

P1180894 copy

The area around USF seems more like a college town these days, with tons of stus milling about the surrounding blocks, as compared with a couple decades back – IDK why, perhaps that’s just my impression…

“Free Tibet” Subaru Wagon vs. an SF Cabbie: Which One’s the Bad Driver?

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

The Subie driver, that’s who.

7J7C2069 copy

How would you find out that you’re one of SF worst drivers? I mean, who’s going to tell you? So yes, you can make a right on red and rely on others to avoid you, but that’s not the way to drive, right?

Just saying