The Bicycle Plan debate: "You scum bag..."

Anonymous wrote:
Man,You got lucky. You got a judge who doesn't give a...about his or his kids' futures. Just keep sucking up your own car exhaust you scum bag. An environmental impact report on a non-polluting form of transportation, my ass. You cry and moan about the process being subverted, yet you have the gaul[sic] to call yourselve "99 percent," a grossly inflated anonymous. Thanks for making what's become a tolerable form of transportation because of bike lanes to a second class citizen level; dangerous. I hope you live near the water, because when global warming raises the sea level, you'll be under water.

Rob Anderson wrote:
Dude, get a grip. You can still ride your bike here in Progressive Land. But the city and the SFBC won't be able to completely redesign city streets for 1-2% of the city's population without doing the proper studies. Eventually, most of the bike network proposed in the Plan will probably be implemented. Note too that, as the judge points out, this litigation was not about the merits of the Plan itself but rather about the city not following the law. Those are two separate issues. This is not about the future of the planet. I of course have serious doubts about the contents of the Plan, but at least now the city's neighborhoods will have a chance to understand what the city and the SFBC want to do to their streets and provide some input before it's done.

Indignant wrote:
Unbelievable. How selfish can you truly be? This city is for the people who live here, not for your stupid car. The neighborhoods are made safer and more pleasant and all you think about is the 3 minutes that have been added to your commute??? What a lame brain power trip to cost the city so much money for your stupid selfish ignorant folly. Did you bother to know that the residents along San Jose Blvd. WANT the bike lanes???? Imagine that! You are a magnificent jerk.

Rob Anderson wrote:
In fact I don't own a car. I walk or ride Muni. Instead of calling me names, you need to pay attention to what the real issues are here, Indig. One of the reasons the city has to go through the legal CEQA process is that it will give people in the neighborhoods a chance to learn what the city and the SFBC plan to do to their streets. Let them decide if they want the city to take away street parking and traffic lanes to make bicycle lanes in their neighborhoods. How do you really know what the people on San Jose want? As Judge Busch pointed out in his decision, until now the city has been doing a sneaky---and illegal---backdoor trip in implementing the Bicycle Plan. What are the city and you bike people really afraid of? I suspect that you know that, once the Plan is laid out on the table, people in the neighborhoods won't be too enthusiastic. And consider this information, Indiggie: According to the DMV, there are 452,813 motor vehicles registered in San Francisco to, presumably, "people who live here." On the other hand, the SFCTA estimates that only 1% of the city's population commutes by bicycle.

john hartsfield wrote:
The SFCTA estimate is obviously way off base, as anyone who would stand at the corner of van ness and markeet any given morning can see. there are tons of bikes on the streets and those bikes need safe places to ride, like in bike lanes. if the thought is that you will lose parking and driving lanes for cars and that this will cause problems then maybe the problem is the cars. as you have stated that you dont own a car and you walk or take muni everywhere, why do you care about these poeople in their cars? and why would you take out your issue on the people who are trying to make a positive change by not consuming more oil and putting pollutants into the environment. i agree with a previous post, this is very selfish, even though you are disguising this as being 'for the people of the neighborhoods to know what the city and SFBC are doing to their neighborhoods. if people want to know, they can contact the SFBC or the city and look the plan over. it's not your job to make their decisions for them at the cost of people making a true difference.

Rob Anderson wrote:
Maybe the problem is that you and other bike zealots are, well, zealots who adhere irrationally to an anti-car ideology that's not reality-based. Let's take still another look at an important, verifiable number: The DMV says that there are 452,813 motor vehicles registered to San Franciscans. Your "tons of bikes" at one intersection in the city is not particularly impressive evidence. The SFCTA, which funds transportation projects in the city, doesn't know what it's talking about?

Why do I care? Because if you take away traffic lanes and street parking without proper thought or study, you are going to screw up traffic for everyone else, including Muni riders and, yes, even cyclists. The bike people use the fact that they don't burn fossil fuel as a big selling point for biking. But the Bicycle Plan---that's what we're discussing, right?---includes elminating the Level of Service (LOS) standard, which measures the time traffic is stalled at intersections to judge a project's impact on the city's environment, otherwise known as traffic jams. If the city no longer has to use LOS that demonstrates how eliminating traffic lanes to make bike lanes will cause traffic jams, it will give the SFBC and the city license to screw up traffic all over the city on behalf of this small minority. And, as you may know, traffic jams involve idling vehicles and air pollution.

You seem to think the good environmental intentions of cyclists should trump everyone else's interests in and on the streets of the city. I note that you don't even mention the law, namely the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which both governments and private developers are obligated to follow. Cyclists don't have to follow the law because they don't burn fossil fuels? Bullshit. It's a good law that requires proper study and community input before major projects are implemented. Two Superior Court judges have ruled in our favor now. Why would they do that if we didn't have the facts and the law on our side?

Michael Self wrote:
Rob, you're correct. However, you are dealing with a group that feels it is so noble that they are above the law. I commend your efforts. You know that you can not use reason in your arguments because this has become a religion for them. They are zealots proclaiming peace on earth as they demand your head on a platter. Keep up the good work, our city is being attacked by the same virus.

Suisun Salman wrote:
You're a piece of trash. Expect a counter lawsuit to force you to pay for the taxpayers' expenses on this one. Then we'll chain you up and give you a bucket of paint and force you to go out and paint bike lanes all over the city. Paint monkey boy, paint!!!

Rob Anderson wrote:

Is this what passes for wit in bike nut circles? Check it out, Suzie: You're only liable for your opponent's expenses when you lose a case, not when you win.