The Subie driver, that’s who.
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?
Stanley Roberts has the deets on this video from Davet Mohmmed:
So, like I think I’d be idling about two yards(!) to the right of where this driver chose to pick up Brocephus and take him to work, particularly if I knew he would be getting in on the left side.
No matter, I ended up passing this car on the right.
In closing, welcome to America, Acura Driver. You’ll like it here on this side of the pond, where we drive on the right side of the right and we pull over to the right and not the left…
So apparently, the SFMTA is working on a plan to ban cars from parts of Market Street while still allowing them to cross over Market Street?
It’s called “Safer Market Street.”
Will kicking cars off of Market Street betwixt Montgomery and Eighth make Market “safer?” I don’t know. (But if the SFMTA wants to propose kicking buses and taxis off of Market, well then that certainly would make Market safer, IMO. )
I don’t know why we allow the SFMTA to do whatever it wants without getting something in return. Like, OK SFMTA, we’ll let you spend all this money on the porked-up Central Subway project, but in exchange, you’d have to bring MUNI up to the level of a mediocre big-city transit system.
Anyway, it’s easy to get tripped up with all the Orwellian names the SFMTA comes up with, like Great Streets! and “Livable” Streets and Safer Market and Better Market, but see if you can figure the words you can see below.
First up, a rep from the local government-subsidized urban renewal outfit uses the word pilot as a verb, because that’s the lingo:
“Lawrence Li (SPUR): Can you pilot some of these auto restrictions?
Some auto restrictions were piloted in 2009 and have since then become permanent. We do not
plan to pilot auto restrictions at this time due to environmental review constraints. However,
there is a separate project, independent of Better Market Street, called Safer Market Street that
is looking at implementing some auto restrictions between 8th and Montgomery potentially as soon as next year. The public kick-off for that project is planned for later this summer.”
And here’s a way for the SFMTA to stick it to the man, to fight back against those TNC’s by supporting cabbies:
“Kevin Carroll: There are private autos operating as taxis such as Lyft, Uber, etc. Will they be
allowed to drive on Market Street with these auto restrictions in place?
No. These services are subject to the private vehicle restrictions and would not be allowed on
Market Street with these auto restrictions in place.”
That’s all I know. Like I said, it’s secret, more or less, for now.
All the deets, after the jump.
Now some cops in California will give you a ticket for this, for riding side by side at 5 MPH on a street like Pine.
Legal or not, I don’t recommend this kind of thing:
Click to expand
(And actually, the CA code section that was written to limit the right of cyclists to block other traffic is now interpreted by some to give special rights to cyclists. It depends on how you look at things.)
[So in five words I’m counting two puns and one subtle jab at the possibility of an absence of balance in this latest unappealable edict handed down from the Court of Justice.]
So here’s the wind-up:
“In May, the Court of Justice of the European Union established a “right to be forgotten.” Today, we published an op-ed by David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer, in the U.K.’s The Guardian, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, France’s Le Figaro and Spain’s El Pais, discussing the ruling and our response. We’re republishing the op-ed in full below. -Ed.”
And here’s the pitch – the final two grafs:
“That’s why we’ve also set up an advisory council of experts, the final membership of which we’re announcing today. These external experts from the worlds of academia, the media, data protection, civil society and the tech sector are serving as independent advisors to Google. The council will be asking for evidence and recommendations from different groups, and will hold public meetings this autumn across Europe to examine these issues more deeply. Its public report will include recommendations for particularly difficult removal requests (like criminal convictions); thoughts on the implications of the court’s decision for European Internet users, news publishers, search engines and others; and procedural steps that could improve accountability and transparency for websites and citizens.”
“The issues here at stake are important and difficult, but we’re committed to complying with the court’s decision. Indeed it’s hard not to empathize with some of the requests we’ve seen—from the man who asked that we not show a news article saying he had been questioned in connection with a crime (he’s able to demonstrate that he was never charged) to the mother who requested that we remove news articles for her daughter’s name as she had been the victim of abuse. It’s a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary, as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer.”
“Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer“
Well played, G!
Here’s the latest effort from CW Nevius, who’s taking a break from being spokesman for San Francisco’s right-side-of-the-aisle political faction to go on a “bit of a rant” against local pedestrians. But what’s up with this?
“Even when they are in the right, I worry about them. When the traffic light countdown gets to five or six, they step confidently into the crosswalk — which is their right…”
Don’t you have an editor, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have an editor, and plus, editors cost money, that’s right.
But don’t you have a fact checker, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have a fact checker, and plus, fact checkers cost money, that’s right.
But don’t you have a photographer, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, photographers cost money. So all your observations, we’ll just have to take your word about them. OK fine. BTW, [sarcasmmode ON] nice stock photo you’ve got there, Neve. “Cause a stock photo taken in the People’s Republic of China, you know, from more than a thousand li away, well, that really illustrates how “militant” and “freaking nuts” San Francisco peds are, huh? [sarcasmmode OFF]
And oh, BTW Neve, the peds of SF aren’t militant, not at all. Try to find a different word for what you mean.
Of course you’re new in town, I get that. Sure, welcome to San Francisco, Neve.
But you’re doing a half-assed job doing your half-time gig.
You need to try harder.
*”Walk, Wait, or Don t Walk
21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows:
(a) “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.
(b) Flashing or steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing.
Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.”
Here we go, in the Western Addition, outbound, gently uphill.
Note the black lines indicating where the bike lane lines should be, and where they used to be:
Click to expand
The answer, Gentle Reader, is to the right of the bike lane lines. Which I suppose is in the supposed “door zone.” But I ain’t ever been doored, at least in the conventional* sense, despite the fact that I have much more time on bike in San Francisco than you, yes you, Gentle Reader. I have more time, more miles, more years, more decades on the Streets of San Francisco than you is what I’m saying, sorry.
And I’m leaving plenty of space for others to pass me. So pass me, I don’t care.
New topic: Note the next block, where the SFMTA has decided to allow 90 degree parking to placate the denizens of District 5. I don’t approve of this, for various reasons.
*Now, I’ve crashed into car doors, sure. Like the time I hit an aging Accord driven by a 16-year-old who thought he could make a turn from McAllister onto Gough at the same time another car was making the same turn. (My left elbow still clicks to this day and it will for the rest of my life oh well.) And I kind of bounced off of a door on McAllister in the PJ’s due to a lady turning into a housing project parking lot from a little bit too far away, IMO, but that was a no harm no foul kind of thing and let’s say that mistakes were made on both sides of that transaction. And I got doored by bouncing off a partially-opened door going uphill on 6th Ave at a very low speed and I’ve gotten doored by passengers getting out of cars on the right side on Market. But I aint ever been doored in the conventional sense.
On most streets, nobody’s going to stop you, so why not do it?
The only downside would be causing an accident, ’cause you could have some liability there.
But see? These gals are Doin’ It Right – they parked in the middle of the block. Whatever you do, don’t park too close to a cross-street:
Click to expand
Ah, breaker one-nine, this here’s the Rubber Duck. You gotta copy on me, Big Ben, c’mon?
Ah, yeah, 10-4, Big Ben, for sure, for sure. By golly, it’s clean clear to Flag Town, c’mon.
Yeah, that’s a big 10-4 there, Big Ben, yeah, we definitely got the front door, good buddy.
Mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us a convoy…
I have no idea how anyone could think that it was a good idea to end America’s primary east-west interstate freeway at Market and Octavia, but that’s what we have with the two-lane Central Freeway off-ramp these days.
Anyway right at the end of the off-ramp, the shoulder turns into a right-turn-only lane. And that’s right where this California Highway Patrol officer was standing the other day, with her prowler blocking your path.
“The current standard issue firearm for CHP officers is the Smith & Wesson Model 4006 TSW in .40 S&W. Each CHP patrol car is equipped with a Remington 870 Police 12‑gauge shotgun and a Colt AR‑15A2 in .223. Additionally, some officers are authorized to carry a taser.” If she has a Taser, she would be carrying it like this.
Click to expand
So I guess she was looking for CVC 21755 Pass on Right Safely violators?
Due to the perpetually congested traffic conditions there’s no place for you to hide after seeing the black and white Crown Vic.
It’s a living.
Anyway, I’ve never seen this kind of law enforcement technique of standing about on a freeway and waiting for the perps…