Now, it’s flagged for being dangerous (what, just yesterday?), but not before tons of people attempted to beat Kim Flynt’s time, to become “King of the Mountain” (KOM) once again.
Here are the deets from a Reader Just Like You, Brandon:
“BTW, speaking of Strava and the cyclist who died in Berkeley in 2010 trying to reclaim his recently eclipsed “KOM” on the South Park Drive descent in Berkeley’s Tilden Park, the same segment has now reappeared on Strava again: http://app.strava.com/segments/1243472
The full descent segment was flagged after Kim Flynt’s death, but a Strava user has redrawn the segment now starting it a little below the top and ending it enough before the bottom to get around the software blocking the segment.
Note that Kim Flynt’s once “record” descent is now all the way down in 7 way tie for 16th place:
16 Kim Flint Jun 06, 2010 66.4km/h 152bpm 300W – 1:56
And the fastest time was set just a few days ago now:
Tim Medina May 20, 2012 72.6km/h 168bpm 155W – 1:46
That’s over 45 mph avg (with a max. of 54 mph)!”
What’s the speed limit there, 30 MPH?
Does Strava encourage speeding? For example, how fast was Strava fan and cyclist Chris Bucchere going down Castro before hit collided with pedestrian Sutchi Hui? (Has there been a measurement done from the video yet?) Shouldn’t Strava ban segments with speeding in them?
Strava wants new customers, Strava wants to make money, right? This is how they do it, they let riders do what the riders want and then when the media focuses on a particularly dangerous segment, it all of a sudden gets flagged and goes down the memory hole.
“Mitsubishi Motors Makes First Fleet Delivery of the 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV (Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle) to Bay Area’s City CarShare
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 8, 2011 — Representatives from Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., (MMNA), along with San Rafael Mitsubishi, conducted the very first fleet delivery of the all-new 100% electric-powered 2012 Mitsubishi i to the California Bay Area’s City CarShare in a special ceremony held at the Green Vehicle Showcase located in front of San Francisco City Hall Plaza on Thursday, December 8 at 9:00 a.m.
City CarShare is a Bay Area nonprofit organization founded in 2001 with the help of several other local nonprofits and the cities of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. Their mission is to promote innovative mobility options to improve the environment and the quality of life in the Bay Area. By providing short-term access to cars City CarShare is reducing traffic congestion, parking problems and dependence on oil while promoting cleaner air and quieter streets.
“We are very pleased to introduce the all electric Mitsubishi i into our fleet. This vehicle brings us one step closer toward our goal of having 50% of our fleet run on alternative fuel as part of our mission to decrease carbon emissions in the Bay Area,” said Rick Hutchinson, CEO, City CarShare.
Numerous fleet orders have already been placed for the innovative, environmentally-friendly and fun-to-drive Mitsubishi i by a wide variety of organizations – multinational corporations, municipalities large and small, major utilities and nonprofit organizations – from New York to Hawaii.
“We thank the Bay Area’s City CarShare for being the first fleet recipient of our innovative 100% electric-powered vehicle,” said Yoichi Yokozawa, President and CEO of Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA). “City CarShare’s stated goals are to help promote modes of personal transportation that help improve the environment while reducing noise pollution as well as fossil fuel dependence, so the 2012 Mitsubishi i is the perfect vehicle to help achieve this nonprofit’s ambitious mission.”
The 2012 Mitsubishi i is the first of several new advanced, alternative-fuel production vehicles that the Japanese auto manufacturer plans on bringing to the North American market in the next few years.
On Dec. 2, UC President Mark Yudof spoke to the California Chamber of Commerce Board in San Francisco regarding misconceptions about the University of California. The following are his prepared remarks.
“A Baker’s Dozen Myths about Higher Education”
Thank you. It’s a pleasure for me to be here this morning, and to see so many familiar faces.
You know, Mark Twain once said, “Predictions are very hard to make — especially when they deal with the future.”
Unpredictability shapes the job of every university president. And as everyone here knows, much has happened at the University of California in the last few weeks. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have about recent events during our Q&A.
Now, with apologies to David Letterman, I’ve come here today with a list. Unfortunately, it’s not very funny.
It’s a list of 13 myths about higher education.
(I should add that because I’m a big fan of Wallace Stevens, I almost called this speech “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a University.” But in deference to the language of commerce, I settled on “A Baker’s Dozen Myths about Higher Education.”)
These are the myths driving the grand narrative about universities — the grand narrative that says students are being priced out of universities like UC, while funding instead goes to new facilities or administrator salaries. So today, I’m here to dispel these myths.
#1: The cost of producing UC degrees and credit hours has gone up over the last decade.
I hear this myth all the time. And it’s frustrating, because this cost has actually dropped by more than 15 percent, in constant dollars, since the 1990s.
This cost has dropped in part due to a broad range of systemwide efficiencies: common IT systems; reduced employee travel; thousands of unfilled faculty and staff positions; one-third fewer employees at the UC Office of the President; a higher student-faculty ratio, and so on.
What has gone up, however, is the student contribution, or co-pay, to these degrees. At the same time, the state’s contribution per student has plummeted — by 60 percent in the last two decades.
To put this see-saw in perspective, UC students now cover roughly 46 percent of general fund support. But 20 years ago, their share hovered around 12 percent.
Now, sometimes I hear a variation on this myth, in the form of #2:
“Affirmative action has always been a touchy subject in California, a state with many high achieving white and Asian students. In 1996, California residents passed Proposition 209, which prohibited public schools from considering race in the admissions process. After Proposition 209, the number of Asians in the elite UC college system surged. But now, a California legislator has put forward Bill SB 185, which would allow public universities to consider race. The Berkeley College Republicans fear the effects this bill might have on the UC system. They hosted a “diversity” bake sale to protest the possible effects of the law. Will the bill go through? Maybe – but some foresee it being vetoed next month.
Check out NMA’s latest video on the Berkeley Bake Sale:
You know, 9/11 conspiracy theorists have become just like JFK assassination conspiracy theorists.
Anyway, they’re back. Deets below.
As seen in Union Square a while back
Ten Years Later, An Independent Investigation of 9/11 is Needed
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 7, 2011 9/11 Reclaiming the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future will be held Thursday, September 8, 1 pm to 10 pm at the Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave., Oakland, and Sunday, September 11, 1 pm to 9:30 pm at the Herbst Theatre, 401 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco. Speakers include Mickey Huff, Dr. Peter Phillips, sister of fallen firefighter David Weiss Michele Little, authors Paul Rea (Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11), Prof. Anthony J. Hall ( Earth into Property), Anodea Judith (Waking the Global Heart: Humanity’s Rites of Passage From the Love of Power to the Power of Love), Kevin Danaher, Joanna Macy (World as Lover, World as Self), filmmakers Ken Jenkins and Brett Smith, and radio hosts Bonnie Faulkner, Carol Brouillet and Sherry Glaser. Along with films Psywar, You, Me & the SPP, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, Hypothesis, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, there will be live streaming from Toronto and Seattle.
The Toronto Hearings will examine evidence for the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigations of 9/11, an event which has been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens. The founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Erik Lawyer will hold ONE: The Event – Shifting from Fear to Love in Seattle to encourage “the choice of love over fear, kindness over anger, and responsibility rather than blame.”
The diverse speakers agree that the official 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Reports on the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings are not believable and that an independent investigation into 9/11 is needed. Those in Toronto plan on issuing their own 9/11 report. Evidence suggests those most responsible for 9/11 were rewarded, that no one was reprimanded, and that others were scapegoated unjustly for their alleged involvement.
The Bay Area events are benefits for the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, whose mission is “to seek and disseminate truths about the terrible crimes committed on September 11, 2001, exposing gaps and deceptions in the official story, and to thus inspire more eyewitness revelations, truthful media coverage, and a movement that will bring the responsible criminals to justice and eliminate governmental and corporate policies that enable criminal elements to commit such acts.”
“The replacement freeway and Boulevard were charged with ensuring a level of service comparable to the previous structure and configuration. This has been achieved…”
In no way, shape, or form does the newish Octavia Boulevard have a level of service comparable to the old Central Freeway.
And, BTW, did the Central Freeway block Fell, Oak, Page, Haight and Market? Nope. Does Octavia Boulevard? Yep, every day, all the time.
(This is an example of misplaced confidence, of the hubris.)
Now, what kind of signal timing does it take to accommodate a 3000-mile-long freeway ending on Market Street. Well, let’s take a look here. Do you notice that Market street peds have about four seconds to begin the journey across Octavia during the 95-second cycle? Why is that? I mean, that means that any given ped on Market has over a 95% chance of having to stop and wait for all those cars on Octavia to go by. Is that fair? Now, what about cars and streetcars and bikes and buses and whatnot heading outbound on Market – do you think it’s much better for them? Well, it’s not. Just 20-something percent of the traffic signal cycle allows traffic to flow uphill on Market at the Octavia Intersection. Why are the lights so biased in favor of the cars driving through on Octavia, you know, as opposed to Market Street?
Check it (oh yeah, that’s some homeless dude coughing at the end there, not me.)
Now, how can I justify blaming the whole “Boulevard Movement” fad of the aughts for an famous accident that killed that UCSF doctor if the UCSF van driver ran a red light? Well, take a look at this:
Click to expand
See? Sometimes half the lanes of Oak have a red light and the other half have a green. Does that make sense? Well, if you’re struggling to make pathetic Octavia work and you don’t want traffic routinely backing up to Golden Gate Park, well then you yourself would be tempted to do whatever you could to help Octavia flow.
Does this unorthodox design factor in human nature, you know, the nut behind the steering wheel? No, it doesn’t. The fact is that car drivers, those sheeple, follow the pack. If the car to the right goes, then they want to go.
Of course, drivers should do better, but we need to factor in their behavior when we design roads, right?
What we shouldn’t do is to let Hayes Valley insiders, that very small but very influential group, to design anything for the rest of us.
And BTW, why on Earth are left turns allowed on inbound Market onto Octavia? Could it be for the convenience of those Hayes Valley insiders? Check it out. You’d think that Hayes Valley types would be satisfied with being able to make a left at the prior intersection or the next intersection, but no, traffic on Market has to wait on a dedicated signal for a dedicated lane of drivers.
Does that make sense?
Why not this? Why not narrow Octavia dramatically and just give up on the whole boulevard experiment? Just take out the frontage roads and all that on-street parking and those medians and that would be a good start on “completing” the Horrible Octavia Experiment, turning it into a “Complete Street.” Even the Great Designer of Octavia admits now that the boulevard is too wide.
And let’s get rid of that left turn lane that was built just for the NIMBYs of Hayes Valley. Why should Market Street, the more important one, take a back street to Octavia, which is basically a glorified freeway onramp?
And why not give people on Market Street half the time of the light signal and then the people on Octavia the other half? Wouldn’t that be more fair?
“Before the destruction of the Central Freeway, condominium prices in the Hayes Valley neighborhood were 66% of San Francisco average prices. However, after the demolition and subsequent replacement with the new Octavia Boulevard, prices grew to 91% of city average. Beyond this, the most dramatic increases were seen in the areas nearest to the new boulevard. Furthermore, residents noted a significant change in the nature of the commercial establishments in the area. Where it had been previously populated by liquor stores and mechanic shops, soon the area was teeming with trendy restaurants and high-end boutiques.”