Thursday, October 15, 2009

Dept. of Clarification: Memo #1

This is the last sentence in the Examiner's account of the latest legal moves in the Bicycle Plan litigation: "Anderson's lawsuit claiming The City didn't do proper environmental studies before approving the [bicycle]plan was supported by a judge." ("Bike plan still awaiting decision on injunction," Will Reisman, SF Examiner, October 14, 2009)

I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again: The city did no environmental studies at all before it adopted and began implementing the 500-page Bicycle Plan to redesign many city streets on behalf of city cyclists. This is the line the folks at the Bicycle Coalition like, the implication that our successful litigation forcing the city to do an environmental impact report on the ambitious Plan was based on legal technicalities ("the City did not comply with the procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in reviewing its official City Bike Plan"). Hard to say what the people at the Bicycle Coalition really understand---except that Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad---but it's simply untrue. Judge Busch could have ruled against us, but the law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is very clear on the issue: if a project even might have an impact on the environment, an environmental study must be conducted, which is the very essence of that law, the most important environmental law in California.
 
The Bicycle Coalition's press release on Judge Busch's decision.

Labels: , ,

6 Comments:

At 8:07 PM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

Until all bicyclists start obeying all traffic laws, I will not support any bikes lanes in this city. The bikers continue to flaunt the law and fly thru stop signs and stop lights with no regard for anyone else.

 
At 12:05 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

There must be a cron job out there that autoposts rocky's comments.

OK rocky - until ALL drivers start obeying traffic laws, blah blah blah. We have plenty of evidence they don't. For example, the Safeway truck that went through the S turn at 15 MPH over the speed limit on the Bay Bridge, wiped out, and clustered up the bridge for 6 hours.

Rob doesn't seem to care so much about cars screwing up their own traffic, but is very concerned about MUNI. Two numbnuts managed to collide at Market and Church today, taking out the N, J, and F for well over an hour. By definition, one of them broke the law (at the very least "unsafe speed" if they can't handle their car).

It's Midnight on Thursday. I set the over/under on people driving over the legal limit right this moment in San Francisco at 100. I'm taking the over.

 
At 12:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's really some excellent logic there, rocky's dad. I sure do feel sorry for Rocky.

 
At 2:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about we have bicyclists obey traffic laws that were desiged with bicycles in mind, instead of just making everyone on the road obey rules designed for cars?

 
At 10:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that rules like "stop at stop signs and red lights" were designed only for cars? Seems to me that those rules apply, rightfully, to all vehicles (including bicycles) for all the same reasons – particularly since bicycles must exist alongside cars, motorcycles, etc.

 
At 11:51 PM, Anonymous Ben said...

Hi Rob, here's a great story on how Copenhagen has become one the world's best cities as far as life quality. The Bay Area really needs to "Copenhagenize"!

What the world can learn about cycling from Copenhagen:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/on-your-bike-what-the-world-can-learn-about-cycling-from-copenhagen-1803227.html

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home