Posts Tagged ‘safety’

Hey MUNI, Your Thing is Up! A #6 Parnassus Driver Tools Down Market With An Access Panel Propped Open – Peds Beware

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

This wasn’t a sidelined bus waiting for help to get back on the road. No no, this was an operating #6 Parnassus heading inbound on Market just the other day.

San Francisco’s infamous jaywalking* peds will now need to keep an eye out for this kind of thing:

Click to expand

*Uh, jaywalking isn’t illegal because of Big Oil. No no, jaywalking is illegal because Big Government wants to protect you from killing yourself. Yet another conspiracy theory debunked…

Racist San Francisco Pizza Delivery Map Evolution – Western Addition, Twitterloin, and Potrero are No Go – Yet It’s Legal

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

[GRUB STREET SF has an explanation from the owner. Plus there's good news for Dogpatch! Sort of. Before 7:30 PM, anyway.]

Remember back in the day, back  more than a half-decade when a joint like Amici’s East Coast Pizzeria could get away with a delivery map like this?

Check it, the Western A and the Potrero Hill PJs were carved out of the delivery areas and the gritty “Uptown” Tenderloin / Twitterloin / 6th Street / Flank area only enjoyed daytime delivery, thusly:

And then came this map, which is a little less racist:

And oh wait, this is the current map still.

(At least the southern part of Potrero Hill isn’t carved out so blatantly these days.)

One wonders what sassy District Five Supervisor London Breed or District Six Supervisor Jane I mean, I’m just saying Kim or feisty District Ten Supervisor Malia Cohen would think about these maps.

This pizza delivery driver safety issue was the talk of the town over at Eater SF and kissing cousin Curbed SF a half-decade back. Let’s review.

Taxi drivers can’t legally refuse to take you to certain areas of San Francisco due to their concerns over personal safety. Non, non, non. That’s a crime called failure to convey that can land a cabbie in the hoosegow. Why are pizza drivers treated differently?

Because in 1996, Supervisor Willie Kennedy gave us a law, (one that became national news), but then it got watered down such that a “reasonable good faith belief” that a driver would be in danger in a particular nabe is now enough to allow the brazen publication of redlined pizza maps.

And check it, flower and newspaper delivery people are off the hook as well.

Note also that there doesn’t seem to be any designated punishment for a violation anyway. Oh well.

To review, cabbies are on the hook, delivery people not.

NB: Dominoes appears to use a different map, or maybe none at all, as it seems they’ll delivery just about anywhere in our seven square.

The More You Know…

SEC. 3305.1. HOME DELIVERY SERVICES.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to any residential address within the City and County of San Francisco falling within that person’s or business entity’s normal service range. A person or business entity may not set its normal service range to exclude a neighborhood or location based upon the race, color, ancestry, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight or height, of the residents of that neighborhood or location. Where a person or business entity regularly advertises home delivery services to the entire City and County, that person or business entity’s “normal service range” shall be defined by the geographic boundaries of the City and County.

(b) For purposes of this Section, “home delivery services” shall mean the delivery of merchandise to residential addresses, when such services are regularly advertised or provided by any person or business entity.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, it shall not be unlawful for a person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to a residential address if (i) the occupants at that address have previously refused to pay in full for services provided to them by that person or business entity; or (ii) such refusal is necessary for the employer to comply with any applicable State or federal occupational safety and health requirements or existing union contract; or (iii) the person or business entity has a reasonable good faith belief that providing delivery services to that address would expose delivery personnel to an unreasonable risk of harm.

(Added by Ord. 217-96, App. 5/30/96; amended by Ord. 295-96, App. 7/17/96; Ord. 222-02, File No. 021462, App. 11/15/2002)

$3200 Crib Set Rendered Unsellable by the Feds – Can You Sell Drop Side Cribs on Craigslist Anymore? No, Hell No

Friday, April 26th, 2013

Here you go, here’s an expensive crib set what includes a crib with a drop side (which means it slides up and down) which you can’t sell in the United States anymore.

But can you sell it used on Craigslist? No. Hell no.

Check it, straight from the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Loophole alert: Are you allowed to sell this crib not as a crib but as a convertible child’s bed?

Possibly.

Loophole alert: Are you allowed to throw away the drop side and sell the crib as a daybed, thusly?

“Beautiful, high quality solid wood Morigeau-Lepine crib converted to toddler day bed. Originally purchased for 850.00. Attached picture is of original drop-side crib which is now banned in the U.S. Drop side piece is not included in this sale to avoid possible danger.”

I don’t know. Maybe.

But what I do know is that you can’t sell drop side cribs no mo, even  on Craigslist.

And yet people try to do that on Craigslist each and every day.

Just saying, ma’am.

What should you buy instead? How about a Sniglar* from IKEA? It costs just $69 (and it certainly looks like it costs just $69.)

And it will not impress any rich ladies in Russian Hill or anywhere else.

But, the Sniglar, she is legal, and that’s the thing.

Sorry for the hassle. Thank you, drive through.

“Morigeau Lepine (Canadian) WOODEN CRIB SET: $3250 VALUE — selling for $1000

Gorgeous Morigeau Lepine furniture in excellent condition. 2800 series collection. Used by one child only in smoke-free house. Can purchase individual pieces or all. Morigeau Lepine furniture is quality, Canadian crafted. Smooth to the touch, durable hardwood construction. It will stand the test of time and you will likely be able to pass down to others. All pieces match and are white with espresso (dark wood) detailing — SEE PHOTOS. 
Crib – $550. Converts to a full-sized bed when child grows older! (Crib mattress can be added for additional $50)
Dresser – $300 
Bookshelf – $200 
$1,000 for all three”

*Wasn’t that Gollum’s name back when he was a Hobbit? Something like that.

(more…)

OMG, It’s On! An Appeal Has Been Filed Against the Oak and Fell Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvements Project

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

Via the District 5 Diary of Rob Anderson.

It’s an alphabet soup, 94117-style – NIMBY ADA CEQA EIR, for starters.

Enjoy:

“Mark Brennan
San Francisco CA 94117

Howard Chabner
San Francisco, CA 94117

Ted Loewenberg
San Francisco, CA 94117

TO:

Angela Calvillo, Clerk
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission St., 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

DATE: November 2, 2012

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, REQUEST FOR STAY and REVERSAL OF IMPLEMENTATION, and REQUEST FOR REVIEW

This is a Notice of Appeal of the October 16, 2012 actions of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“MTA”) Board of Directors approving the Oak and Fell Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvements project (the “Oak-Fell Project” or “the Project”). The approval of the Project was an abuse of discretion and a failure to proceed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.). This is also an appeal of the San Francisco Planning Department’s October 4, 2012 Categorical Exemption of the Oak-Fell Project.

The Project is also a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC Section 12101 et seq (“ADA”) and California disability rights laws, including California Civil Code Sections 54 et seq. (The ADA and California disability rights laws are sometimes referred to collectively herein as the “Disability Rights Laws.”)

This is also a Request for Review of the October 16, 2012 MTA Board actions pursuant to the San Francisco Charter §8A.102 (b)(7)(i).

Appellants request an immediate STAY of implementation of the Project and every part of it, pending final determination on this Appeal and Request for Review, and pending full compliance with CEQA and other applicable laws. Also, because MTA has already begun implementing the Project before the time to appeal the actions described in this Appeal and Request for Review has ended, appellants also demand REVERSAL of all implementation of the Project and restoration of pre-Project conditions on all affected streets and sidewalks.

Copies of the MTA Board’s October 16, 2012 Resolution #12-129 and the Planning Department’s October 4, 2012 Categorical Exemption (Exemption from Environmental Review for the SFMTA Fell & Oak Streets Bikeways Project–Case No.E011.0836E) are attached.

Grounds for this Appeal lie within, but are not limited to, CEQA, the Disability Rights Laws, and other applicable statutes, regulations, and ordinances that may apply, including the following.

1.The categorical exemptions invoked under 14 Cal. Code Regs. (the “Guidelines”) Sections 15301(c) and 15304(h) do not apply to the Project, since the Project: (1) has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; (2) has possible effects that are cumulatively considerable; and (3) will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Pub.Res.Code Section 21083(b).) Therefore the Project cannot be classified as “categorically exempt.” There is evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project could cause direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, transit, loading, air quality, public safety, and emergency services. Among other things, the Project will cause substantial adverse effects on people who need to park near where they live or work.

2. The claimed mitigations do not effectively mitigate the Project’s impacts, and, in any event, cannot be used to claim a categorical exemption.

3. The Oak-Fell Project is part of a larger project, the San Francisco Bicycle Plan (the “Bicycle Plan”). If it applies at all, a categorical exemption must apply to the whole Bicycle Plan project, not just the Oak-Fell segment. The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) on the Bicycle Plan did not specifically analyze the Oak-Fell Project.

4. The Oak-Fell Project has not received specific environmental review as part of the larger Bicycle Plan or at any other time.

5. The Project does not qualify for an exemption under Guidelines Section15301(c), which consists of the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alterationof existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination,” (emphasis added) and (c) “Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails and similar facilities…”

The existing conditions are parking lanes, not Class I or Class II bicycle lanes. A parking lane, as defined in the California Streets & Highways Code Section 5871(c), is “a paved area adjacent to the curb which is used exclusively for on-street parking. It does not include any portion of the street used for through traffic or as a bicycle lane.” (Emphasis added) The “facility” does not meet this basic definition, since it would completely remove the parking lane and change its use to a separated bicycle lane for exclusive use of bicyclists. (S&H Code Section 890.4(a).) These definitions are mutually exclusive and involve a complete change of use. The Project, therefore, does not fall within the existing facilities exemption under Guidelines Section 15301.

The Project does not consist of mere maintenance or minor alteration, but makes major changes by, among other things: (a) entirely removing the existing parking lanes on City streets; (b) removing around 100 existing parking spaces on Oak and Fell; (c) constructing concrete and other solid structures in the streets next to moving traffic (raised, landscaped traffic islands); (d) impeding visibility and access to driveways; (e) eliminating, reducing or making dangerous and more difficult streetside, emergency, and loading access to residences and businesses on Oak and Fell; (f) constructing numerous concrete bulbouts that impede traffic by making right turns difficult; (g) adjusting traffic signals to reduce traffic speed on a major East-West traffic corridor in San Francisco; (h) eliminating one traffic lane on Oak Street during morning commute hours; and (i) constructing bicycle lanes where they do not now exist.

6. For the same reasons, the Project does not qualify for an exemption under Guidelines Section 15304(h), which consists of “minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees, except for forestry and agricultural purposes,” and “creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way.” (Emphasis added.) There is no existing right-of-way in the parking lanes on Oak Street and Fell Street for bicycle lanes, since the right-of-way in parking lanes is exclusively for vehicles. (See S&H Code Section 5871(c).) Nor is the Project a “minor” alteration in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation. Rather it is a major alteration and change of use from a parking lane for exclusive use of parking vehicles to a bicycle lane for exclusive use of riding bicycles.

7. The Project is an exception to any categorical exemption, because substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant impacts on parking, traffic, transit, loading, noise, air quality, public safety, emergency services, and human impacts on two major East-West traffic routes carrying a combined more than 60,000 vehicles per day. (And since many vehicles carry more than one person, the number of drivers and passengers affected will be more than 60,000 per day.) (Guidelines Section 15300.2; and see Pub. Res. Code Section 21083(b).)

8. Impacts on humans require a mandatory finding of significance, including impeding access to streetside parking, affecting disabled people, seniors, children, families, workers, and emergency, maintenance, construction and delivery services. Loading impacts also affect commercial and passenger loading. The Project will also affect public safety by impairing visibility from driveways.Bulbouts also impair visibility and delay traffic by making right turns more difficult. Asserted mitigations do not mitigate the Project’s impacts and cause more impacts that require analysis.

9. Cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, air quality, noise, public safety, and emergency services also exclude the Project from any categorical exemption.

10. The Disability Rights Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in, among other things, programs of local government, use of streets and sidewalks, and transportation. California Civil Code Section 54(a) provides that “Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways…public facilities, and other public places.” Title II of the ADA requires local governments to provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services and activities. Sidewalks, streets and parking are programs provided by ADA Title II entities, and therefore are subject to ADA requirements.

Although the loss of parking would be a hardship for the large numbers of people who live, visit and work in the neighborhood, it would disproportionately impact people with major mobility disabilities, such as wheelchair users and slow walkers. Many people with mobility disabilities rely heavily on private vehicles. Disabled people park in regular street parking spaces far more often than in designated accessible street parking spaces (blue zones). Many people who use wheelchairs or scooters rely on accessible minivans and vans that have ramps or lifts on the passenger side. In effect, all street parking spaces (except perpendicular and angled spaces, those on the driver’s side of a one-way street, and, sometimes, those with sidewalk obstructions such as garbage cans or trees in the exact location of the ramp or lift) are accessible spaces.

The Project would remove all street parking on the South side of Oak, which means that all of the disabled accessible parking spaces would be eliminated for those three blocks. The parking spaces on the North side of Oak would remain, but it would be extremely dangerous for disabled people to use them because the ramp or lift would be deployed into the moving lane. The project includes mitigating the parking loss on Oak and Fell by converting parking spaces on some of the side streets, which are currently parallel parking, into perpendicular or angled parking spaces. This also would eliminate spaces that are currently usable by disabled people, thereby adding to the parking loss on Oak instead of mitigating it. Not only wheelchair and scooter users, but people who walk slowly and with difficulty would also be harmed by the loss of parking spaces on Oak and by the elimination of parallel parking on the side streets.

The Project would also make it more difficult, dangerous and stressful for disabled people, including wheelchair/scooter users and people who have difficulty walking, to be picked up and dropped off in this area, whether by private vehicle, taxi, paratransit or shuttle service.

These effects violate the Disability Rights Laws.

REQUEST FOR STAY and REVERSAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

This is also a Request for an immediate stay of implementation of the Project and any part of it pending final determination on this Appeal and Request for Review, and pending full compliance with CEQA and other applicable laws. Also, because MTA has already begun implementing the Project before the time to appeal the actions described in this Appeal and Request for Review has ended, appellants also demand REVERSAL of all implementation of the Project and restoration of pre-Project conditions on all affected streets and sidewalks.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO SAN FRANCISCO CHARTER SECTION 8A.102(b)(7)(i).

This is also a REQUEST FOR REVIEW pursuant to the San Francisco Charter Section 8A.102(b)(7)(i) of the MTA Board’s Resolution #12-129 of October 16, 2012, approving the Oak-Fell Project. This Request for Review incorporates all of the grounds stated in the foregoing Appeal, and additionally requests Review by the Board of Supervisors of the City’s substantive violations of CEQA, the Disability Rights Laws, and other statutes, regulations, and ordinances.

The Board’s action was an abuse of discretion and a failure to proceed under CEQA, since it will cause significant impacts on the environment, including impacts on parking, loading, traffic, transit, and emergency services. The Project also affects accessibility and safety of people with disabilities, and is therefore contrary to the Disability Rights Laws.

The Project also creates public safety hazards by impairing the safety and visibility of drivers accessing driveways. The bulbouts also adversely affect visibility and safety by impairing visibility of oncoming traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians. Bulbouts also worsen congestion and delays.

REMEDIES REQUESTED

1. Set aside all approvals of the Oak-Fell Project, and the October 4, 2012 Categorical Exemption.

2. Declare that any future proposal to implement the same project must be preceded by an environmental impact report fully analyzing all impacts and proposing effective mitigations for each of the Project’s possible impacts on parking, traffic, transit, noise, air quality, emergency services, public safety, and human impacts. Cumulative impacts must be analyzed taking into account all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that will also affect traffic, transit, parking, noise, air quality, and public safety on Oak and Fell Streets and the entire area. Spillover and secondary impacts from removal of streetside parking must also be analyzed, along with any impacts caused by mitigations, including traffic congestion caused by signal timing. The analysis must include real-time on-ground traffic counts during AM and PM peak periods taken at a variety of representative days of the week and times of the year.

3. The EIR must propose effective mitigations that eliminate each of the Project’s impacts, including consideration of avoiding each impact altogether by not implementing the Project.

4. The City must implement effective mitigation before Project implementation.

5. The City must propose a plan to effectively comply with the Disability Rights Laws, provide an opportunity for meaningful input and comment on such plan, and incorporate such plan in a revised Project.

6. Further consideration of the Project must be stayed until City has complied with CEQA, the Disability Rights Laws and other applicable statutes and regulations.

7. Such other remedies as may be appropriate.

Appellants will submit more detailed comment and/or briefing in support of this Appeal, Request for Stay and Reversal of Implementation, and Request for Review at or before a hearing by the Board of Supervisors.

With this appeal, appellants do not waive the right to present any and all issues and other public comment in further proceedings on the Project.

Please notify the undersigned of the date of the hearing, all actions on this Appeal, Request for Stay and Reversal of Implementation, and Request for Review, and all actions regarding the Project. Please schedule the hearing not earlier than 30 days from the date of this document.

DATE: November 2, 2012

Mark Brennan
Howard Chabner
Ted Loewenberg

FROM:

Mark Brennan

San Francisco CA 94117

Howard Chabner

San Francisco, CA 94117

Ted Loewenberg

San Francisco, CA 94117

Supervisor John Avalos Throws Down: Regulation of the Google Bus is Coming – Legislation for Corporate Shuttles

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

Here’s the news:

“Supervisor Avalos Moves to Regulate Private Shuttle Stops

San Francisco, CA – Today San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos requested that the City Attorney draft legislation to create a permit process to regulate shuttle stops for private employer shuttles in San Francisco.

The number of private shuttles on San Francisco streets has increased dramatically in recent years. The San Francisco Transportation Authority reports that there are approximately 36,000 one-way trips per day taken on private shuttles. These shuttles stop at over 200 different locations in the City. There are currently no regulations governing the locations of these shuttle stops. The majority of these stops are using Muni curb zones, which is currently illegal and impacts Muni service.

“I appreciate how private shuttles help reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions,” Supervisor Avalos said, “but their rapid growth makes it clear that we need sensible City policy to prevent this from growing into an unregulated Wild West era of shuttles competing with Muni for curb space.”

As a member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Mobile Source Committee, Supervisor Avalos recognizes that private shuttles are becoming an important part of the City’s transportation and environmental policies.

Despite their benefits, private shuttles present challenges that the City must manage. In addition to delaying Muni service, these shuttles increase the wear and tear on City streets and impact neighborhood’s quality of life. As chair of the Public Safety Committee Supervisor Avalos says, “I recognize the need to address the safety hazards posed by large, double-decker shuttle buses navigating narrow and hilly City streets.” Less direct impacts, such as the dramatic increase in housing costs near shuttle stops, also warrant study.

Supervisor Avalos is encouraged by the work of the Transportation Authority’s San Francisco Integrated Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Partnership Project in coordination with the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), the Planning Department, the Department of the Environment, and the shuttle operators. He looks forward to working with all of these groups to develop a comprehensive City policy to foster additional growth in private shuttles while minimizing their adverse impacts.”

Now here’s how we handled things a half decade back, or at least here’s how Supervisor Bevan Dufty handled the NIMBYs of Noe Valley back in 2007. (I think he was holding a photo of a Google Bus but I never saw the photo any closer.)

On It Goes…

PS: MUNI sucks. 

Here’s Something New: Position-Aware Wheel Bike Lights – White in Front and Red in Back

Tuesday, October 16th, 2012

Now when I say “new” I mean it’s new to me, Gentle Reader.

How do these lights know when to flash on?

Click to expand

This kind of thing is similar to but different from revolights, right?

Better Know Your Lovable Safety Nerds: It’s a Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT) Party!

Monday, August 6th, 2012

Here’s the scene in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle (which I argue is a part of Golden Gate Park for the same reason that the Idaho, Oklahoma, and Florida panhandles are a part of their respective states. But anywho…)

Can you see the Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT) people having an exclusive party complete with vests and ornamental hats / helmets?

Click to expand

And I thought, wow, I can see some writing on the balloons, so one of them must have “logistics” written on it, and I was proven correct. It’s the yellow one, I think.

I don’t know, in my opinion NERT is too involved with local politics.

Oh yeah, and I don’t like the word “neighborhood” in there – sounds a bit NIMBY to me.

JMO.

I’ll just say that this scene would look less comical if it didn’t have the yellow police tape in there to keep out, who, the nearby homeless people or the hippies?

Anyway, carry on, NERT.

Supervisor Scott Wiener to Address San Francisco’s Streetlight Issue Today at 10 AM in City Hall

Monday, June 4th, 2012

Per Supervisor Scott Wiener:

On Monday, 10 AM, I’ll be holding a hearing in City Hall to discuss our streetlights and the need to improve them & make them more reliable.”

I suppose he’s talking about stuff like this and this, but I wonder why Market Street looks like this at night lately, with all the street lights off from the Financh to troubled Mid-Market to the Twitterloin and beyond:

Click to expand

(Hey, remember when our former man-child of a Mayor, that former scion, remember when he turned on a streetlight in the Twitterloin using his iPhone? Now, looking back, did that help at all? No it didn’t. Obviously not. But it made his day and he wanted to share. That’s what he thought was Governance. Oh well.)

Anyway, please, City Hall, turn off the dark.

San Francisco’s Pedestrians are Horrible – Here’s Why: They Generally Enter Crosswalks Either Too Early or Too Late

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

Do you know the rules of being a pedestrian? Most people don’t. Most people think, and not without good reason, that:

“PEDESTRIANS ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY.”

But this is a false statement.

Peds, you can’t go across crosswalks:

1. Too Fast (that means no running into a crosswalk);

2. Too Slow (that means you can’t hang out and stand around or do jumping jacks or whathaveyou);

3. Too Early (that means you have to let the intersection clear of cars bikes buses etc EVEN IF YOUR LIGHT JUST TURNED GREEN – I’m srsly, it’s The Law in California); or

4. Too Late (that means when you see the red DON’T WALK signal flashing or you see a yellow light shining, basically)

Here’s a recent example of too late, on Market Street.

Do you see? The cyclist, who stopped properly at his stop line on outbound Market in the Financh, had the time to to wait for his green and make it across the intersection only to be blocked by these sauntering peds. Why? Because they entered their crosswalk too late, that’s why. (Do you think the SFPD officer camera left stopped to hand out citations? No, why would he, it’s not really his job to give out tickets to late-night peds. Also, note where the cyclist’s left hand is, stuck out as a warning.)

Click to expand

This kind of thing is the reason why each San Francisco car vs. ped death so far in 2012 has been the fault of the pedestrian him or herself.

And yet, the only solution San Francisco’s governmental and quasi-governmental organizations have to offer for ped death is infrastructure ”improvement.” It’s the only implement in their toolbox.

Oh well.

If the SFMTA were Serious About Cyclist Safety, It Would Ban Buses, Streetcars, Trucks, Taxis and Limos from Market, Instead of Cars

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Just saying.

Oh, the SFMTA wants to ban cars from Market Street for other reasons? O.K.

Oh, there’s a balance of interests here? O.K.

But if you cared about cyclist safety more than anything else, you’d ban buses, streetcars, trucks, taxis, and limos from Market before you’d ban cars.

Montgomery and Market:

Click to expand

That might not fit with your worldview, but it fits with reality.