Posts Tagged ‘yield’

Comments re: “Statement from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition on Mayor Ed Lee’s Veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law”

Wednesday, January 20th, 2016

Just posted.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition on Mayor Ed Lee’s Veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law Jan. 20, 2016 – Mayor Ed Lee’s veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law makes San Francisco the first U.S. city to take a major step away from its promise to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries.”

Hoo-boy, a lot to unpack already. OK, the universe is U.S. cities who (or that – I mean, do cities make promises?) have promised the impossible – eliminating ALL transportation mishaps starting on a date certain, in our case about four years after all pols concerned have termed out, aka January 1, 2024. And I’m thinking, has any other American city promised this? IDTS! And the other issue is if this is a step away from safety, which is highly debatable, of course. This is more of a rights issue rather than a safety issue.

“…Vision Zero…”Focus on the Five,” assuring the people of San Francisco that police would dedicate half of all traffic citations to the five violations that cause a majority of traffic deaths.

If we’re talking about CVC code sections, and we are, then three of the top five in SF are pedestrian-only violations. Sorry.

SFPD leadership is even erroneously adding those citations into their Focus on the Five data, and still falling short of dedicating half of all traffic citations to the five most dangerous traffic violations.

It’s not at all clear that rolling through a stop sign should be excluded from the poorly-written FOCUSONTHEFIVE initiative since that CVC section is specifically enumerated as one of the five. If SFGov meant to exclude cyclists (I’m sorry, “people biking” – that’s the new term for 2016, I guess for better “framing?”), then it should have excluded cyclists, right? Amend if you want to, right?

A majority of the Board of Supervisors and thousands of supporters sought to deliver safer streets by legislating smarter enforcement.

Again, that’s just your conclusion, man. “Safer,” “smarter?” Hey, how many local groups (think peds, think differently-abled) opposed this proposed change? Lots and lots. Do you want me to list them? I sure can.

The Bike Yield Law…

No more “Idaho Stop,” huh? More framing, yay! Why is Idaho Stop bad now? I have no idea.

Mayor Lee dishonored the lives lost in San Francisco crashes…

Holy shit, man! Really?

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has worked for over 40 years…

Uh nope. I’ve been around longer than it has. Sorry. Pretty much defunct/nowhere in the 1980’s. Sorry.

…London Breed…

Oh that’s right, she is running for reelection is a district what’s a touch too progressive for her record.

And on and on.

I’ll tell you, I’ve been California Stopping my way through stop signs in San Francisco since before the current SFBC even began. Like on  a daily basis. I’ve never been ticketed or even warned by anybody at the SFPD. Of course, I do this at a much slower speed than is typical on, say, the Wiggle bicycle route, where some routinely go across stop sign stop lines at 10 MPH plus, oh well. In any event, yes, enforcement is at a pretty low level already. Even in infamous Park Station, where in some recent monthly reports, it records zero (0) pedestrian / cyclist / people biking citations. I mean, you can’t get lower than zero, right? Of course, the SFPD also does enforcements actions on the Wiggle. (To me, that’s a message to stay away from the already-overburdened official exact Wiggle route (how about one block away from the Wiggle route instead – would that be so so hard for you all?)) These spates of enforcement catch even those who cross over stop lines at a reasonable pace – that’s unfortunate but oh well. The real targets of these actions are those who don’t pay attention and who California Stop at way too high a speed…

 

A Few Points About the Proposed “Idaho Stop” “Bike Yield Law” Before Our Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, December 1st, 2015

SF’S BIKE YIELD LAW BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ COMMITTEE BY CHRIS CASSIDY ON NOVEMBER 30, 2015

…it’s going to take all of us uniting and speaking in one diverse and clear voice.

WHAT? LET’S ALL JOIN IN LOCK STEP TO BECOME “DIVERSE?” WTF. (GET ME REWRITE.)

common-sense safety legislation

WELL THIS IS SOMEBODY’S CONCLUSION. OF COURSE IF THIS EFFORT DOESN’T END UP INCREASING SAFETY THEN IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN “SAFETY LEGISLATION,” AND I, FOR ONE, DON’T SEE THIS AS AN OBVIOUS, SIMPLE, “COMMON-SENSE” ISSUE. AVERAGE BIKE SPEED OVER STOP LINES ON THE VAUNTED “WIGGLE” ROUTE ARE ALREADY TOO HIGH, RIGHT? WOULD THIS LEGISLATION GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO MAKE IT HIGHER?

cautiously rolling through stop signs

I’LL TELL YOU, YOU CAN CAUTIOUSLY ROLL THROUGH STOP SIGNS LIKE EVERY DAY FOR DECADES AND YOU’LL GENERALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM FROM THE SFPD UNDER THE APPARENTLY NON-COMMON-SENSE RULES WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS KIND OF THING ALREADY IS A VERY LOW PRIORITY FOR THE SFPD EXCEPT IN PROBLEMATIC AREAS LIKE THE SO-CALLED WIGGLE ROUTE, WHICH ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD EITHER AVOID _OR_ WOULD USE MORE CAUTION THAN THE AVERAGE, TYPICAL WIGGLE RIDER. HERE’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN – THE SFPD IS GOING TO GET MORE COMPLAINTS FROM PEDS ON/NEAR THE WIGGLE. THIS INFO IS GOING TO GET TO THE MOTOR PATROL. THE MOTOR PATROL IS THEN GOING TO CAMP OUT ON THE WIGGLE. WHICH PART? WALLER AND STEINER, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS ALREADY. WHY SOME NON-PROFIT WOULD WANT TO FUNNEL MORE BICYCLE TRAFFIC THROUGH AN ALREADY OVERLOADED INTERSECTION IS A MYSTERY TO ME. IN ANY EVENT, YES, DURING THE RARE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PERIODS YOU WILL GET TICKETED FOR GOING OVER A STOP LINE EVEN AT A VERY LOW SPEED LIKE TWO MPH. SORRY. AS STATED, YOU CAN EASILY GET AROUND TOWN BY AVOIDING THIS SPECIFIC ROUTE, IF ONLY BY ONE BLOCK. AND IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COPS SITTING THERE, THEN YOU’RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION. AND IF YOU WANT A NON-WIGGLE ROUTE TO GET WHERE YOU’RE GOING, JUST ASK ME. MY ROUTE WILL HAVE FEWER TURNS TO BOOT. TURNS ARE BAD FOR SAFETY AND STRAIGHTER ROUTES ARE BETTER FOR SAFETY, RIGHT?

lowest traffic enforcement priority

I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU’D ENFORCE THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PEACE OFFICER – YOU KNOW THEY LEARNED US IN COLLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF MICROMANAGING INDIVIDUAL POPO. SO YES, OF COURSE, THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF TRYING TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION _DOES_ “SEND A MESSAGE” TO THE SFPD AS A WHOLE, BUT I WOULDN’T GET ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT’S NOT REALLY GOING TO MATTER IRL

The ordinance only applies to people biking through stop signs where others, including people walking, are not present at the intersection up their arrival.

OUR SFPD ALREADY DOES STING OPERATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE A FAKE PEDESTRIAN WAIT FOR A CAR AND THEN START CROSSING AN INTERSECTION TO SEE IF THE DRIVER WILL STOP. IF THIS LEG PASSES AND IF THE SFPD DECIDES TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY THEN THE SFPD WOULD NEED TO GET SOMEBODY TO START WALKING ACROSS, IDK, LET’S SAY WALLER AND STEINER, AND THEN IT WOULD BE FISH IN A BARREL TIME ONCE AGAIN.

The Bike Yield Law would be the first San Francisco law to codify that people walking always have the right of way

OH GEEZ, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE – PEDESTRIANS IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE’S NOTHING A BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS CAN DO ABOUT THAT. (SORRY, COLLEDGE, REMEMBER?)

This is about keeping our streets safe…

UH, NO IT’S NOT. IT’S ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO RIDE ON BIKES.

ensuring that SFPD officers are free to focus their attention on the traffic violations known to cause the majority of traffic deaths and severe injuries in our city.

ALL RIGHT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO “FOCUS ON THE FIVE” CVC VIOLATIONS THAT KILL PEOPLE IN SF, THREE OF THEM ONLY APPLY TO PEDESTRIANS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT “FAILURE TO YIELD” APPLIES TO A LOT OF DRIVERS WHEN THEY HAVE ACCIDENTS WITH PEDS, SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM ON THE TOP FIVE LIST FOR BAD PED BEHAVIOR LIKE JAYWALKING VIOLATIONS, SORRY. THE WAY FOR SIMPLE-MINDED PR TYPES TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE TOP FIVE “DRIVING” BEHAVIORS THAT KILL PEOPLE. SORRY.

[LET’S OMIT A FEW MORE GRAFS WORTH OF FOCUS ON THE FIVE MISSTATEMENTS TO SAVE TIME]

Even after the events along the Wiggle this summer, SFPD leadership continues…

I’LL TELL YOU, SOME MONTHS, LATELY, SFPD’S PARK STATION HANDS OUT A TOTAL OF ZERO (0) TICKETS TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE RIDERS FOR ENTIRE CALENDAR MONTH. THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING YOU WANTED WITH ZERO FEAR OF GETTING TICKETED. ONLY JUST SAYING. SO, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, OUR SFPD HAS ALREADY LOWERED “ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY” ON BIKE RIDERS.

I’LL TELL YOU, FOR VARIOUS REASONS SFBC-ENDORSED MAYOR ED LEE (LIKE LITERALLY – BACK WHEN IT COUNTED, THIS ORG’S BOARD ACTUALLY ENDORSED HIS ELECTION) DOESN’T WANT TO VETO THIS IDAHO STOP* LEGISLATION AND FORCING HIM TO DO SO JUST MIGHT PISS HIM OFF. (HE’S ALREADY A LAME DUCK, WITH HIS SECOND TERM NOT HAVING EVEN STARTED YET?) ONE WONDERS WHY OUR SFGOV-FINANCED SFBC IS PUSHING SO HARD ON THIS NON-SAFETY NON-ISSUE AFTER GETTING A FAIRLY EXPLICIT PROMISE OF A VETO.

ONE WONDERS…

*I GUESS THE NUANCES OF IDEOLOGICAL “FRAMING” ARE LOST ON ME – WE DON’T CALL THIS CALIFORNIA STOP LEGISLATION IDAHO STOP LEGISLATION ANYMORE? OK FINE. 

Why Peds Hate Prius Drivers, Ch. MMCCLXVII

Wednesday, November 25th, 2015

They’re still the worst drivers, after all these years:

7J7C0282 copy

Explaining How This Cyclist Got a California Stop Ticket at 6th & Cabrillo While I’ve Gotten Zero Tickets in 25 Years

Wednesday, September 9th, 2015

This is the scene from two days back, southbound 6th Ave betwixt Cabrillo and Balboa.

I’m assuming the bike rider got a ticket, ‘specially since he seemed to be ignoring the cop even after siren whooped once, and then again.

And here’s the thing – Bro slowed way down for the stop sign, on a pretty big slope, he showed respect for the stop sign, about as much as the typical car driver would have. Even so, the Richmond Station cop on the dirt bike pulled him over anyway. See?

7J7C4160 copy

I myself, heading north, back to The City, didn’t have a chance to come to a complete stop before I heard the whoop-whoop noise, but I certainly did after.

Anyway, here’s the thing – the cyclist either didn’t see the cop coming west on Cabrillo OR the cyclist ignored the cop ’cause he didn’t think he’d get pulled over.

If I were the cyclist coming downhill, I DEFINITELY would have seen the cop and I certainly would have come to a complete stop once I saw the cop.

Gentle Reader, how many people living today have more time on a bike in SF County the past quarter-century than I? Precious few, I’ll tell you. Junior the Bike Messenger, certainly, and most of your career-level SF messengers, and some of the “founders” of Critical Mass still living in town, certainly. And, due to a couple somewhat-SFMTA/MUNI-related mishaps, this has been a bad year. However, I’m still in the 99th percentile, and I’ll tell you:

You gotta show respect for the po-po, unless you want to spend hundreds and thousands on tickets over your lifetime on a bike in Frisco.

Is this two-faced? I suppose. But what do you want me to do? I California stop on bikes, and in cars. It depends on the circumstances. And one of the big circumstances is if a cop is right there looking at you. Of course one should be looking around all the time anyway, for other bikes, for cars, trucks, peds, everything

Admittedly, bikes were (seemingly) invisible to the SFPD back in the 80’s and 90’s, so I had a bit of an advantage over the riders of today. But my biggest advantage is paying attention – that’s the key.

IMO.

Anyway, that’s why I have more miles and fewer citations than the average…

Barely Legal: Turning Left Across Double Yellow Lines on Busy Masonic to Park Your Car – DUDE, IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

Friday, August 14th, 2015

Oh Lord:

P1300529 copy

Not only did this maneuver block the fast lane of northbound Masonic for a while, it also resulted in squealing brakes / tires from inattentive drivers headed south.

IF you timed this right, during certain parts of the day or night, then this might be OK.

But the correct way to park in the garage of one the Great Estates of this part of Masonic is to GO AROUND THE FUCKING LUCKY to end up heading south on Masonic from the terminus of this part of McAllister.

END OF LINE.

I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.

The SFMTA’s New “Scott Street Traffic Diversion” Proposal

Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

Well the SFMTA has a new tack on Scott Street betwixt Page and Fell for this year.

So last year, the SFMTA felt that these particular blocks of Scott were filled with “high speed” drivers “speeding” through the place and the SFMTA felt that the simple four way stop intersection of Page and Scott was “confusing for everyone.” Here we go:

With intersecting bike routes and heavy vehicle volumes, this intersection  is confusing for everyone

In fact, Page and Scott is not “confusing” at all. As stated, it’s a simple four-way stop, about as comprehensible as possible. And in fact, Page and Scott does not experience “heavy vehicle volumes.”

Oh well.

But hey, if you want to say that Hayes and Scott has heavier traffic volume these days, especially during the evening drive, well, we agree on that, SFMTA. Before, this traffic would have been on Divisadero, but recent “improvements” to the DivCo have lessened the DivCo’s capacity.

Here is the result of the “improvements” to Divis:

Anyway

But now it’s 2014 and that was then and this is now. The SFMTA is articulating new rationales for doing what it wants to do. They’re contained in the Scott Street Traffic Diversion.

Let’s check it out:

Motorists who drive through a neighborhood – rather than to a local destination – can cause congestion on residential streets.

WELL GEE, I SUPPOSE THAT’S TRUE. BUT MOTORISTS WHO DRIVE TO A LOCAL DESTINATION – RATHER THAN DRIVING THROUGH – CAN CAUSE CONGESTION AS WELL, RIGHT?

The City proposes restricting traffic on Scott Street to make it more comfortable for residents, bicycle riders and pedestrians.

OK, SFMTA, WHY DON’T WE RESTRICT TRAFFIC ON _ALL_ STREETS TO MAKE _EVERYBODY_ MORE “COMFORTABLE?”

An extra-large bulb-out at Scott and Fell will require all southbound automobile traffic to turn right onto Fell Street; bicycle riders and pedestrians can continue on Scott. This will reduce Scott Street’s appeal as a cross-town route, making it a more pleasant place to walk, bike, and live.

SO YOU WANT DIVISADERO TO BE A _LESS_ “PLEASANT” PLACE?

Access will be maintained to all homes and driveways, and changes will be made to improve Divisadero Street to accommodate diverted traffic.

OH, I SEE, YOU WANT DIVIS TO HAVE MORE GREEN LIGHT TIME AND, LET’S SEE HERE, HAIGHT, PAGE, OAK, FELL, HAYES, ETC TO HAVE LESS GREEN LIGHT TIME. ISN’T THIS KIND OF A ZERO-SUM GAME? WHY SHOULD THE CITY BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THE RICH HOMEOWNERS OF SCOTT STREET?

Changes to Scott Street were initially requested by neighborhood residents unhappy with congestion and idling vehicles.

OK, SO WHAT ABOUT EVERY OTHER STREET IN SF? ARE YOU GOING TO POLL RESIDENTS OF ALL THE OTHER STREETS TO MEASURE THEIR “HAPPINESS?”

Restricting southbound traffic would greatly reduce this issue for several blocks both north and south of Fell Street. Residents who live on Scott between Oak and Fell would have to approach their homes from the south when driving, but would still have access to their driveways and would be able to exit the block to either the north or south.

WHY NOT THIS, SFMTA? WHY NOT SAY THAT ONLY SCOTT STREET RESIDENTS CAN PARK ON SCOTT STREET? I’LL BET THAT WOULD INCREASE THE HAPPINESS LEVEL OF THOSE MILLIONAIRES EVEN MORE. ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT NEXT, SFMTA?

With the proposed traffic diverter, drivers would still be able to park on both sides of Scott Street on the block between Oak and Fell with a U-turn required to reach parking spaces on the west side of the street. The traffic diverter would not remove any parking spaces from Scott Street, though bulb-outs at other locations in the project area will each remove 0-3 parking spaces.

WHY DON’T YOU JUST COME OUT AND SAY HOW MANY PARKING SPACES YOU’RE GOING TO TAKE OUT, SFMTA? OH, THAT’S NOT YOUR STYLE, HUH?

Biking on Scott Street in the southbound direction will be significantly calmer, with fewer automobiles to share the road with.

FEWER BUSES TOO, RIGHT? IN FACT NO BUSES AT ALL. AND YET, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE RIDE ON BUSES ON SCOTT THROUGH THIS SACRED AREA ON A DAILY BASIS. WHAT ABOUT THEM?

Scott Street will no longer be a convenient route for driving in the southbound direction.

BECAUSE IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE, RIGHT? WELL, WE AGREE ON THAT ON, ANYWAY.

For drivers with destinations within the Alamo Square or Lower Haight neighborhoods, either Divisadero or parallel neighborhood residential streets could be used.

WELL THANKS, CAPTAIN OBV!

For drivers currently using Scott Street for longer stretches, Divisadero will be improved to make it the preferred route through the area.

UH, NO IT WON’T. SIMPLY.

Driving north on Scott Street would not be restricted under the proposal, though raised crosswalks and speed humps will be added.

WHAT’S THE SPEED LIMIT ON SCOTT, SFMTA? HOW MANY PEOPLE “SPEED” ON THESE TWO BLOCKS BETWIXT PAGE AND FELL? OH NONE, ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU’LL PUT IN “SPEED” BUMPS ANYWAY, BECAUSE, BECAUSE…?

Because of improvements the SFMTA will be making to Divisadero in conjunction with this project, neighborhood streets such as Steiner, Pierce and Broderick would not be expected to receive noticeable changes in automobile traffic – in fact, some cross-town traffic on these streets may switch to Divisadero as well.

THIS IS PIE IN THE SKY. THIS IS THE SFMTA’s BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN. IF THE SFMTA WANTS TO FAVOR NORTH-SOUTH TRAFFIC OVER EAST-WEST, IT CAN, OF COURSE, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF EAST-WEST TRAFFIC, OF COURSE. ISN’T THIS A ZERO-SUM GAME, SFMTA?

Changing the traffic signals on Divisadero Street will ensure that the increase in the number of cars using Divisadero will not slow down the 24-Divisadero, and could even improve Muni service in some stretches.

THIS IS PIE IN THE SKY. THIS IS THE SFMTA’s BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN. OH WELL. HEY SFMTA, WHY NOT CHANGE THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON DIVIS RIGHT NOW, IF DOING THAT WOULD BE SO GREAT? SIMPLY, DIVERTING TRAFFIC ON SCOTT WILL NOT IMPROVE BUS SERVICE. SORRY, SFMTA. SORRY TO HARSH YOUR MELLOW, SFMTA.

The SFMTA Renames Lower Haight as “The Wiggle Community” – Calls for SFPD Crackdown on Bikes, Return of Hated Traffic Circles

Wednesday, July 17th, 2013

[UPDATE: Now let’s hear from famous Jim Ross:

“I lived on Scott Street, between Oak & Fell during the last traffic circle experiment. Was nearly hit four or five times walking to Haight Street for coffee. That is a very residential neighborhood, one reason it is good to bike through. But also, a bunch of pedestrians should not have risk life and limb to cross the street…”

Indeed, Jimbo! Pedestrians wanting to cross Page would hear a car coming from a half-block away. What should they do? Would the drivers slow down? The peds wouldn’t know. Very bad!  All this so that Page could eventually become a “Bicycle Boulevard?” All this so that cyclists wouldn’t have to worry about getting tickets for California stopping? Ridiculoso!]

Here it is, from our incompetent SFMTA:

Wiggle Community Open House

You know what, SFMTA, do you know what you should be “passionate” about? Do you know what your primary function is? It’s to operate the fucking transit system.

So how well do you think you are you doing, SFMTA? Do you think you all are doing a spectacular job? Really?

So why not this, why not say, “We’re the SFMTA, we’re MUNI and we don’t do a very good job these days but we have a pot of money to spend on the Lower Haight and we think this kind of project would be a good use of taxpayer money.” You know, as an introduction, to build credibility with your audience.

Anyway, let’s get to a few of the more glaring issues with the so-called “Wiggle Community,” fka the Lower Haight.

Oh, here we go:

Click to expand

Let’s read the boxes here:

“With intersecting bike routes and heavy vehicle volumes, this intersection  is confusing for everyone”

OMFG, SFMTA, WTF? The intersection of Page and Scott doesn’t have “heavy” vehicle volumes. NOT AT ALL. Also, it’s a simple four way stop. It’s not “confusing for everyone.” WTF are you smoking, you SFMTA hippies?

“Heavy vehicle congestion from drivers using Scott as a cut-through to Fell and Oak.”

OK, as stated, Scott Street just doesn’t have heavy vehicle congestion. Hey, SFMTA! Do you know about the ongoing, daily disaster you all created called Octavia “Boulevard?’ Well guess what. It has “heavy” vehicle congestion. As does Oak, which routinely backs up going all the way up to freaking Alamo Heights. As do other streets intersecting with Octavia due to how the lights are timed. What color is the sky in your world, SFMTA? And what’s a “cut-through?” Is it street? I think it is? How about this, SFMTA, you all name me a street and then I’ll make a up a name for the surrounding area and I’ll call it a “community.” How about the “Ashbury Southern Heights (ASH) Community?” Then, I’ll critercise all those mofos who use the southern part of Ashbury Street to “cut-through” my made-up “community.” And then I’ll blame ALL “congestion” on people who don’t live in the “community.” That’s what you’re trying to do here, SFMTA. Every street in SF is a “cut-through,” using the phrase the way you all use it.

“Haight Street has buses and commercial activity, and is less comfortable for biking.”

Biking isn’t necessarily “comfortable,” SFMTA. And it never will be. I know you all are addicted to spending money, but this rationale is exceptionally weak. It’s right up there with using “transit justice” to justify the wasteful nine-figure Central Subway subway to nowhere project in Chinatown.

“Bicyclists don’t yield to pedestrians, particularly in the downhill direction”

Well, yeah, that’s right. Like Haight and Pierce, for example. I’ll tell you, I’m surprised the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition branch of the SFMTA would allow a publication to come out what talks about enforcement actions and what has a photo of an SFPD officer. I guess this is the SFMTA throwing a bone to the peds?

Anyway, read through the whole seven pages for more SFMTA boners.

Speaking of which, the SFMTA is back with the traffic circles.

All right,about a decade ago, the very same SFMTA was dead-set on putting traffic circles in the Haights, specifically on Page and Waller. The SFMTA said it had numerous studies praising traffic circles. The SFMTA said that “the community” wanted traffic circles. The SFMTA was wrong. The SFMTA had a vote by the neighbors and it lost by about a three to one margin – all 11 proposed traffic circles got voted down. Anyway, the plan was to have them become gardens or whatnot. So, for the SFMTA to list unsightliness as the first reason for the SFMTA’s failure, well, that’s a little disingenuous, IMO. So the reason the SFMTA can now claim it has “installed traffic circles with success and community support” in the Richmond District recently is that the SFMTA didn’t allow a vote. If the SFMTA allowed a vote on any particular traffic circle, the SFMTA would lose. So, no more voting, bingo bango.

This is horse doody:

“Traffic Circles Then & Now
In 2003, the SFMTA experimented with removing stop signs and installing traffic circles at several locations along Page Street. Many residents complained that the circles were unsightly and deprioritized pedestrians, and they were removed. However, in recent years the SFMTA has installed traffic circles with success and  community support, using improved outreach, design, and signage.

Are there places in the Wiggle where you’d like to see traffic circles today?”

Is the SFMTA saying that it has “improved” the design of traffic circles the past ten years? Perhaps they’ve done research on the number pi? Perhaps they’re thinking traffic ovals? Traffic ovoids? IDK.

Anyway, just because you lie about stuff, that doesn’t mean people will necessarily believe you, SFMTA.

Ah, mem’ries:

“Subject: Page St. Traffic Circle Hearing TOMORROW
From: joshua@sfbike.org
Date: March 17, 2004 1:30:06 PM PST

“Dear SF bicyclist,

The 9-month long Page and Waller Traffic Circle Pilot program is coming to a
close, and the Department of Parking and Traffic is holding a public hearing
TOMORROW, THURSDAY MARCH 18TH to hear from residents and users of the
street. This is your chance to voice ideas, concerns, and opinions about
this traffic calming experiment. Each of the 11 proposed circles will be
voted on by residents living within a block, and voting will conclude March
25th. The circle receiving the highest percentage of votes (over 50%) will
be installed on a permanent basis, with consideration for others that also
receive 50% or more of the vote.

The meeting will be held:

6:30pm-8pm this Thursday, March 18th
Park Branch Library
1833 Page St. at Cole

The SFBC supports the concept of the traffic calming circles, but shares the
concerns of many other residents and neighborhood groups, including Walk SF
and the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, that:

1) there was not sufficient neighborhood outreach or involvement prior to
circle installation

2) more education and public outreach is needed to users of the street to
convey safe and legal behavior at the circles

3) pedestrian right-of-way is being compromised with the current circle
design

Although we don’t think the current design is perfect, we are encouraging
our members and other residents living along the Page and Waller corridor to
VOTE YES to give the circles a chance to be improved upon.

BICYCLE BOULEVARDS

Given the right education, signage, and enforcement, we believe the circles
will benefit the neighborhood and cyclists by being the first step toward a
true bicycle boulevard on Page St.

A bike boulevard is an innovative bicycle facility that is often applied to
residential streets that parallel major arterials. It consists of three
design elements:

1. stop signs placed only on side streets to give priority to the boulevard

2. traffic circles installed in at least some of the intersections to slow
cars down to 10-15mph while allowing bikes to maintain momentum

3. diverters, barriers or forced turns that prohibit automobile through
access on the bike boulevard while continuing to allow cyclists,
pedestrians, and emergency vehicles through.

A bicycle boulevard treatment applied to Page St. could dramatically reduce
the volume and speed of traffic, and reduce or eliminate stop signs, making
bicycling along Page much easier, safer, more efficient and pleasant. It
would not “close” the street to cars- drivers would still be able to access
every point along Page, but using this neighborhood street as an auto cut
through would be a thing of the past.

Although the DPT is not considering a full bicycle boulevard currently,
Thursday’s meeting will be a good chance to voice your support for this
concept, and build support among local residents.

You can find out more about bicycle boulevards at:
http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/ii1e.htm

DPT’s web page on the circles is at
http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13573

Because of vocal opposition to the circles, it is particularly important for
people to come and speak at the hearing about the benefits of traffic
calming and a bicycle boulevard along Page St. For more information,
contact me (using the information at the bottom of this e-mail).

TALKING POINTS FOR THURSDAY’S MEETING

– There are problems with the implementation of the circles, but the concept
is good. We need better signage (yield to peds pop-up signs, and stops
where appropriate)

– A full bicycle boulevard (including side street stop signs, circles, and
diverters) will dramatically reduce car traffic on this residential street,
prioritizing the street for cyclists and pedestrians.

– Vote yes on the circles!

Thank you for supporting YOUR Bicycle Coalition and an improved bike
network!”

Can’t We All Get Along: Google Maps Bike There Blog Makes the Case for Bikes on Sidewalks

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

Right here.

I don’t know, you might buy it.

Happy California Street, where ped and cyclist coexist:

Click to expand

Oh, here are the rules for cycling on sidewalks:

  1. GO SLOW – This is the chief of all rules for riding on the sidewalk. All the other rules fall under this one. You should never ride faster than a relaxed jog. The sidewalk is built for pedestrians, so you should not be going faster than them. Pedaling fast down the sidewalk is a perfect way to get hurt, hurt someone else or get pulled over by a cop.
  2. Yield to pedestrians – If you come up behind people walking, be very polite and wait for a good time to ask them to let you pass. Never come up behind them yelling, ringing a bell or anything else that could startle or scare them. You are trespassing on their terrain so be courteous.
  3. Check every cross street and driveway – This is the dangerous part! Drivers are used to pulling all the way up to the road before coming to a stop and turning onto the street you’re following. Make sure when coming up to a driveway or cross street that you slow down and check to make sure a car isn’t coming. They aren’t looking for fast moving vehicles to be coming off the sidewalk, so you have to be watching for them!
  4. Only cross the street at crosswalks – A good way to get hit by a car is to come darting off the sidewalk into the street randomly. Again, remember that drivers aren’t looking for people to jump off the sidewalks into traffic randomly. If you need to cross the street, wait until you get to a cross walk and do it there.
  5. Be willing to walk your bike – If you regularly ride on the sidewalk, there are going to be lots of times where the best decision is to get off your bike and walk for a bit. This is usually due to congestion. When there is just to many people around that you risk hitting one of them, it’s time to walk. Constantly keep it in your mind that you can get off your bike and walk if things seem “iffy”.

Good YouTube News for MUNI: The 19 Polk Collision Was the Other Driver’s Fault

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Well looky here, just posted less than an hour ago on the YouTube by“GetBackJoeJoe” (does he work for MUNI?) is DRIVECAM footage of the January 5, 2010 accident involving a 19 Polk line bus.

Of course it would be nice to have more info (and maybe a view to the left and the right as well) but, man oh man, I’d hate to be the pickup truck driver’s Plaintiff’s Shyster on this one. Obviously, that was way fast for a California Stop from the MUNI driver,* but did you see how far the bus made it through the intersection before getting hit? And did you hear that lengthy panic stop?

(Not sure if GPS is the best way to measure the speed of the bus, but no matter, both drivers should show more a lot more respect to stop signs, needless to say.)  

The moment of impact, courtesy of the DRIVECAM:

The passengers inside the bus have a great case (assuming they were physically injured). As always, make sure to file your claim with the govmint comfortably within six months of the date any injury. (If you, the bus passenger, get a lawyer, he or she will sue any and all parties that could possibly be at fault, of course.)

Let’s hope for a quick recovery for all injured and fewer intersection collisions in 2010.

UPDATE: SF Weekly has posted some other views after reviewing more of the video released by the SFMTA. It’s too bad that aging pickup (Toyota?) didn’t have the latest ABS and airbags. 

UPDATE: Additional views are here.

UPDATE: From the SFAppeal comes this spirited defense of the MUNI driver. Obviously, the MUNI driver rolled through the stop sign but that didn’t cause the collision. You know, maybe the MUNI driver ran a red light the day before or rolled through a stop sign at the previous intersection – you know, maybe he did something illegal before the accident, but that didn’t cause this particular accident. This collision was caused by the pickup driver. 

The MUNI driver was in way too much of a hurry so he needs some kind of attitude adjustment, but the pickup driver will not be able to pin blame on the MUNI driver, no way Jose.    

*That kind of behavior is generally tolerated from cyclists in San Francisco, but definitely not from drivers.

Why Doesn’t the Richmond’s Killer Geary Boulevard Have More Traffic Lights?

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

See this pedestrian in red in the middle of Geary Boulevard in the Richmond District? She just came halfway across from the left and it sure looks like she’s fixing to make it the rest of the way on 22nd Avenue to the southern side of the street.

Let’s say you’re the driver, perhaps in a first person shooter video game or whatever, what do you do here? SFPD Richmond Station Captain Richard Corriea has his troops fired up about traffic safety, so this could be another sting operation using an undercover babushka lady or pink bag mafiosa as bait. Therefore, you gots to yield to let her across. But what happens then?

Click to expand, it’s fun to play along:

What happens then is that inbound traffic in the slow lane (seen on the right) doesn’t stop. Zing, zing, zing they go past. Unseen is the Steven Fowler-type behind you in a BMW (it’s always a BMW, which model does Fowler probably have by the way, M5, M3, X5? something like that) laying on his horn because you, the idiot driver ahead of him, doesn’t know how to drive.

Should you go forward as well? That’s a failure to yield moving violation right there, but by waiting for her are you encouraging her to do something dangerous, like crossing the damn street in the Richmond, the biggest danger, by far, in her life?

On it goes for half a minute, the pedestrian waits for the three-series  behind you to catapult launch around you up the slow lane and then the ped makes it across.

This is insanity. Shouldn’t this be an electronically-controlled intersection with traffic lights instead of just a couple of stop signs for cross traffic? Why aren’t there traffic lights and countdown pedestrain signals for the whole of Geary Boulevard in the Richmond all the way up to Avenue 30 or 40 or something?

Money? We can’t afford it? Geary Boulevard is too wide and too busy for this kind of half-assed, a couple of stop signs are good enough, we’ll repaint those crosswalk lines when we feel like it attitude.

Who will be the next to die?