Saturday, August 07, 2010

Let the gloating begin!


A bike guy was disappointed that I didn't already have a blog post Saturday morning in reaction to Judge Busch's rejection of our challenge to the Bicycle Plan's EIR. He couldn't wait, so he made his gloating comment on the Judi Bari item:
 
wow, no posting on how the injunction was lifted yesterday? Depressed? Or just don't want to talk about your defeat against what is obviously an inevitable movement away from cars in big cities across the globe....Its called the movement of time....Things change...Get over it....

As an old guy, I'm increasingly familiar with "the movement of time." It may be disappointing news to my critics, but apparently I'm not the depressive type. The anonymous commenter expresses the confidence many bike zealots have that they represent a great historical movement away from motor vehicles and toward, presumably, bicycles. I think that's very unlikely but only the Movement of Time will show us who's closer to reality.

Streetsblog was so happy Friday night it posted two items on the decision. In a comment, Katherine Roberts compared the bike movement to a moving train, which I inexplicably threw myself in front of:

I'm just pondering what Anderson actually accomplished by throwing himself in front of a moving train like that, besides forcing it to slow down a little. Hardly seems worth spending over 5 years on. Just think of all the positive things he could have done during that time, not that he would've. But still, it's a puzzlement.

I haven't been idle in the intervening years, since I've been writing this blog since December, 2004. There aren't enough hours in the day to track all the delusions of San Francisco's progressives, with the bicycle fantasy among the most prominent. One might also question how Roberts used both her time and her money in the unsuccessful attempt to stop the construction of the garage under the Concourse in Golden Gate Park. And then, oddly, trying to deny doing that.

Marc Salomon's comment rightly complains about the dereliction and folly of the Bicycle Coalition's leadership and their enablers in City Hall:

This is not a win until the process moving forward is informed by the lessons of this debacle and the next round of bicycle improvements after the 1997/2004 network are approved. There must also be accountability for those in government and advocates who chose the short cut which led to the four year delay, otherwise there will be no disincentive for any future comers to do it correctly.

Salomon wants to punish the people responsible for the foolish attempt to push the Bicycle Plan through the process before doing any environmental review, but he's unlikely to get his wish. Being a progressive in San Francisco means never having to say you're sorry or that you're wrong about anything. Salomon talks about what he sees as the price cyclists paid for that incompetence:

How many cyclists were injured or worse over the past five years due to this error? Is that to be accounted for off [the]balance sheet?...What is really shameful here is that the SFBC's membership has doubled over the interval of the injunction. When incompetence is rewarded instead of punished, when a decade of denial doubles membership, then that bodes ill for safe cycling on the streets moving forward.

What's "worse" than being injured? Salomon presumably means fatalities, which are rare for cyclists in SF, averaging only 1.8 per year between 1998 and 2008. Yes, the SF Bicycle Coalition's membership has supposedly grown over the years. It seems like their membership grows by 1,000 every time Leah Shahum provides a soundbite to the media. And, if the city's numbers are to be believed, the overall number of cyclists in SF has also increased. But the city's studies also show that over the years our streets have actually become safer for everyone, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. The moral of the story: the city's inability to implement the Bicycle Plan has had little impact on either the popularity of cycling or the overall safety of city streets.

And there's this information, which is not surprising to the rest of us but that the bike people try to ignore: the city has found that the reckless and scofflaw behavior of cyclists is responsible for 50% of their own injury accidents.

City progs should remember that answered prayers are often the worst kind, that what happens next on our streets represents a political danger for the great bicycle movement, as the city begins taking away street parking and traffic lanes on busy streets to make bike lanes. There are signs that the natives are getting restless in the neighborhoods over the city's anti-car, anti-parking policies. If there's a limit to how much city residents are willing to allow the bike fantasists to screw up their streets, we're going to find out what it is.

Labels: , ,

36 Comments:

At 2:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marc Solomon's a smart guy but has a big chip on his shoulder against the SFBC for getting kicked out of the inner circle years back. Something about being unable to play well with others, much like yourself I suppose.

Personally, I think you did the bike community a huge favor with your lawsuit. Bike lane projects were taking forever to implement - Howard Street took something like 5 years or something ridiculous. The lawsuit lit a fire under everyone's asses to get all the planning done and spend the money that needed to be spent. We now have 34 miles of lanes ready to go and climate where just about everyone's in favor of more bikes. We would never have gotten this far without having an enemy appear to rally the troops. So thanks Rob!

 
At 5:30 PM, Anonymous Shawn Allen said...

Hi, Rob! I'm not surprised to see that you refuse let Judge Busch's thorough legal dressing down keep you from repeating the same tired talking points. A few things in this blog post stand out as particularly dumb, though:

"And, if the city's numbers are to be believed, the overall number of cyclists in SF has also increased."

If you've spent any time outside of your house in the last 5 years it should be pretty obvious that the number of cyclists has increased. You shouldn't need SFMTA to tell you that.

"But the city's studies also show that over the years our streets have actually become safer for everyone, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. The moral of the story: the city's inability to implement the Bicycle Plan has had little impact on either the popularity of cycling or the overall safety of city streets."

There's really no way to know whether cycling would or wouldn't have gotten much more popular if the city had gone ahead with the Bike Plan in 2005. But the obvious growth of cycling along the Valencia corridor alone should serve as proof that bike lanes can encourage adoption, and it stands to reason that more people will choose to bike in San Francisco as streets are made—actually and perceptually —safer for them to do so. Judge Busch even goes out of his way to mention evidence supporting mode shift in his ruling on the EIR's analysis of parking impacts.

"And there's this information [...]: the city has found that the reckless and scofflaw behavior of cyclists is responsible for 50% of their own injury accidents."

Exactly why is this so outrageous? What percentage of motorists are responsible for their own injury accidents? Or pedestrians, or people in general for that matter? What does that number have to do with anything?

"[...] what happens next on our streets represents a political danger for the great bicycle movement, as the city begins taking away street parking and traffic lanes on busy streets to make bike lanes. There are signs that the natives are getting restless in the neighborhoods over the city's anti-car, anti-parking policies."

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations for these policies. They're not about being "anti-car"—although, yes, drivers do tend to get the shit end of the stick in forward-thinking decisions about land use and transportation. That's simply the reality of urban planning, and it's unfortunate that we live in a city so beholden to private automobiles that it's so politically difficult to do anything that even slightly inconveniences drivers. If even just SFBC membership is any indication, though, there are (likely just as many) natives restless over the city's deference to motorized "convenience" at the expense of Muni riders, pedestrians, cyclists, and all residents of this city who heavily subsidize the externalized costs of automotive entitlement.

If you were interested in anything more than sabotaging the "progressive" establishment you would be working with other people to mitigate the impacts of these policies, and build cohesion in your community rather than encouraging hostility and spite. Instead, you form two bogus "coalitions", sue the city on your own, then tirelessly lecture people from the safety of your blog while lamenting that you're "the only one in the media" (which media?) who criticizes bike-friendly transportation policy.

You're not alone, though, Rob. There's an army of SFGate commenters who I'm sure would gladly join your "coalitions" if you asked them to. Then you could hijack community meetings like Noe Valley's own Tea Party!

 
At 7:01 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Marc Solomon's a smart guy but has a big chip on his shoulder against the SFBC for getting kicked out of the inner circle years back. Something about being unable to play well with others, much like yourself I suppose."

Your account of Salomon's split with the bike leadership reduces it to a personality conflict. My understanding is that how the SFBC was pushing the Bicycle Plan was the issue there. But I'll let Salomon defend himself.

Your notion that "bike lane projects were taking forever to implement" before the litigation and the injunction is simply false. In fact the city was implementing the Plan four years ago, which is why we asked for and got the judge to issue the injunction in the first place. If the city was allowed to continue implementing the plan before the hearing on the merits of our complaint, our suit would have been rendered moot, an accomplished fact that the court was unlikely to order reversed. In short, the fire was already lit.

You may think that "just about everyone's in favor of more bikes," but I don't believe it. A lot of goodwill is being eroded by the boorish behavior of many cyclists on city streets, not to mention Critical Mass. If the Bicycle Plan was on the city's ballot, it would probably be rejected by city voters, which is why it never will be.

 
At 8:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

@shawn allen: the group that you seem to call the Noe Valley tea party, which is just a dumb name and meaningless, really was very successful in preventing the INSANE closure of Noe St. at 24th, just for the purpose of creating a cheap, ratty little plaza with a bunch of table. Most residents were opposed to the closure and we are pleased with the results. The closure would have resulted in large increases in traffic congestion on smaller side streets and other parking and delivery issues. We are now moving forward with other city leaders to create a permanent public plaza in the poorly utilized parking lot off 24th st. near Sanchez.

 
At 9:34 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

I'm too tired to gloat. But mark my words - the sky will not fall. Not one of these bike lanes will end up being removed because of "backlash". They will be well received by those who use them, and not noticed by those who don't.

 
At 8:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well rob, i am glad you made a nuanced response to the lifting of the injunction. i was afraid that your head would explode like the guy in the movie Scanners.

glad you're safe and sound.

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"If you've spent any time outside of your house in the last 5 years it should be pretty obvious that the number of cyclists has increased. You shouldn't need SFMTA to tell you that."

Of course we need SFMTA to give us information like that. Your impression of how many cyclists are on city streets is bound to be different than mine. MTA now does an annual count of cyclists in August. They regularly report that more cyclists are on city streets, which may be true. The problem I have with the annual count is that, given the close relationship between city government and the Bicycle Coalition, of course the day of the count is widely known in the cycling community, which I suspect tends to inflate the official count.

"But the obvious growth of cycling along the Valencia corridor alone should serve as proof that bike lanes can encourage adoption..."

Valencia Street is not a typical city street, since it's completely flat and connected to Market Street, which makes it much easier to use for cyclists to get downtown. And the impact of the bike lanes on businesses along Valencia was diminished because the city didn't take away any street parking to make them. It was a different story on Market Street.

"What percentage of motorists are responsible for their own injury accidents? Or pedestrians, or people in general for that matter? What does that number have to do with anything?"

Because the Bicycle Coalition and the city have long believed that it's a zero sum game on city streets, that to make it safer for cyclists it has to be made more difficult for people to drive in the city. Or as Andy Thornley said more than five years ago, "We need to take space from cars."

The premise of the bike movement has always been that the main threat to cyclists is cars/motor vehicles. But as bike messenger/author
Robert Hurst
says, "There is no greater danger to the cyclist than the cyclist's own incompetence." And, as both Hurst and John Forester point out, most cycling accidents are solo falls that have nothing to do with other vehicles.

The SFBC is in fact anti-car, which is why they oppose every new parking garage in the city, including the garage under the Concourse in Golden Gate Park and the garage built by UC Hastings. And the city has embraced this anti-car policy, which, if continued will damage the city's tourist economy that depends on a reasonable flow of traffic on city streets.

Interesting that you don't even mention Muni, which will suffer "significant" impacts---that is, it will be slowed down---by implementing the Bicycle Plan.

Opposition to the bike fantasy is similar politically to the Tea Party movement? Bullshit.I'm an Obama Democrat. It's interesting, however, that you think screwing up city traffic is a "progressive" movement. How true! Interesting too that the people of Noe Valley were angry over the attempt by the bike people---led by bike fanatic John Murphy---to screw up traffic in their neighborhood.

You refuse to believe it, but you bike people aren't particularly well-liked in San Francisco, which is why screwing up city traffic and slowing down Muni lines by implementing the Bicycle Plan has some serious political risks for city progressives.

 
At 10:24 AM, Anonymous Chotto Chotto said...

Rob, you know it's all about UN control right?

http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894

This bike agenda is a communist takeover of America. Thank you for standing on the front lines against this threat.

 
At 10:38 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"Interesting too that the people of Noe Valley were angry over the attempt by the bike people---led by bike fanatic John Murphy---to screw up traffic in their neighborhood."

Not true, but unfortunately we have your friend the deliberator who will listen to the green screaming meanies.

 
At 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know how much you enjoy reading studies. Chew on this one for a while:

http://news.discovery.com/human/opposition-makes-your-opinions-stick.html

You've changed over the years and become more hardened to anything relating to the four letter word: bike.

 
At 11:53 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

What's not true? There wasn't significant neighborhood opposition to your proposal?

 
At 12:24 PM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

Rob, you are absolutely right. There was, in fact, significant opposition to the proposed Noe St. closure for the so called "plaza".. I, like many others, were strongly opposed to this insane idea of taking over a street with resulting increases in traffic congestion on nearby smaller streets. Thankfully, our good supervisor Bevan Dufty, and other city people listened to us and we prevailed.

I think there remains real difficulty with the "bike coalition people" attempting to make future changes to our city streets, all to benefit a small minority of cyclists.

 
At 12:24 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"your proposal?"

Not true either.

 
At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The first post-injunction project will include significant bike improvements on Townsend Street, Laguna Honda Boulevard and North Point Street. A new bike lane will be striped today at Townsend and Fourth streets."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Bicycling-focused-projects-ready-to-roll-100241579.html#ixzz0w8i34NbE

WOOHOO!!

 
At 1:54 PM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

For gods sake, murph! you get hung up on words and semantics all the time.

You need to see things more broad minded and put your ego and holier than thou attitude aside a little more often. You really are irritating.

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

This an opportunity for Murph to give his version of events in Noe Valley on the Noe plaza proposal. Take as much space as you want, Murph. The readers of my blog really want to know about this.

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Pingo said...

Yeah, baby!!

San Francisco is poised to stripe a record 35 bike lanes on key streets such as Townsend St., North Point St., Laguna Honda, 17th St., Portola Dr., and Ocean Ave. and once again make streets safer for everyone.

"We are celebrating San Francisco's freedom to once again make streets safer for everyone," says Renée Rivera, Acting Executive Director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, an 11,000-member nonprofit that promotes the bicycle for everyday transportation. "This is the first time in San Francisco's history that this many bike lane projects are approved and ready to be striped and we're so pleased that the city is acting so quickly to get these new improvements on the ground to help growing numbers of people feel more confident, comfortable and safe when they bike to shop, to work and to play."

Despite the four-year absence in significant street improvements, bicycle ridership has surged by more than 53% and the corresponding demand for improvements is impacting every neighborhood in San Francisco.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/transportation/detail?blogid=33&entry_id=69724#ixzz0wAanbDoa

 
At 11:30 AM, Anonymous Nayosso Ty said...

Hey Rob, thought you'd like these photos:

http://nmvsite.com/what-our-cities-could-be

Cool huh! We need to get those tunnels dug for cabs!

 
At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so now that they've got "their" lane are the bikultists going to pay for it? the new $10 vehicle fee would be a good place to start. followed by registration fees and mandatory liability insurance like the rest of the "vehicles' on the road.
gee maybe the bikeys will even start obeying the rules of the road:stop signs, single file, slower traffic pull over, etc.
until then they won'tget much respect from the rest of us using the road.

 
At 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The murph I don't thinkg is about to comment about his version of the Noe Plaza debate..he's a sore loser and can't deal with it.

 
At 3:51 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Cyclists don't care if we respect them, since their self-esteem is quite high already, thank you very much. And they already seem to have contempt for lesser beings like us who don't ride bikes. Streetsblog is the best place to see this inflated self-esteem in full flower in the comments to the article about the SFPD giving cyclists tickets. The outrage! The injustice!

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

OH yea, I LOVED the whiners comments..I mean cyclists comments about being ticketed for breaking a traffic law...more excuses than one can imagine..the "entitlement" attitude toward special treatment for cyclists is amazing...and then, of course some of the bikers try to shift the topic and talk about the drivers..always trying to move the traffic problems to ONLY the drivers..

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how many people were injured or killed thanks to the bike lanes your lawsuit prevented from being established?

You truly are an odious human being.

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

Just thought you might want to be aware that the folks over at Streetblog clearly get upset when one begins to challenge the status quo over in the comments section. Regarding the current discussion about the SFPD giving out tickets to cyclists who break the law, when someone supports what the police are doing..they get pretty pissed..and begin to censor the comments.

Pretty defensive bunch over there, I'd say. Too bad they are afraid of alternate opinions. They use the weak excuse of not wanting anyone to "insult" anyone else. Oh, the horrors! The shame! The ridicule!

Thankfully, here, Rob seems to allow, for the most part, pretty diverse opinions..and responds to them with intelligence and often with wit.

 
At 3:30 PM, Anonymous Shawn Allen said...

I get a good laugh whenever people like Rocky's Dad complain about cyclists' "entitlement". Are drivers not "entitled" to unfettered road access, abundant parking, timed signals, or even lax enforcement of speed limits? Are public transit riders not "entitled" to reliable schedules, bus shelters, and comprehensive route coverage? Are pedestrians not "entitled" to wide sidewalks, right of way on well-marked crosswalks, benches, parks, or trees?

And if any of these are true, what's so wrong about cyclists wanting a bike lane? You seem to be suggesting that drivers deserve that space more than cyclists do, but isn't that exactly what we mean when we say entitlement? Who "deserves" the space more? And, more importantly, who are you to make that decision for the rest of us? We elect leaders in a representative democracy with the explicit understanding that the disproportionate needs of minorities—racial, sexual, cultural, or economic, or otherwise—may sometimes take priority over the convenience of the majority. And if you're so disillusioned by your government's inability to conform to your vision of the city, then maybe San Francisco isn't the place for you. I'm sorry, but your city is changing. Bitching and moaning about self-righteous hipsters is not constructive for anyone.

Try visiting Valencia Street and spend some time on the beautiful, new, spacious, tree-lined sidewalks. As you're standing at the corner of 16th and Valencia (no doubt fuming at the "entitlement" of the thousands of cyclists commuting to work in the morning and hogging all that road space), consider the fact that the road diet and replacement of traffic lanes with bike lanes over a decade ago quite literally paved the way for that street's eventual and drastic transformation. Consider also that bike-friendly signal timing has reduced traffic speeds, but that somehow Valencia very rarely experiences heavy congestion. Consider, too, that other people in your neighborhood might want their streets to be more like Valencia (and less like, say, Divisadero or Masonic).

People were up in arms over the Valencia reconfiguration back then, and now it's hard to imagine that anyone living nearby would consider it to have been a bad move. Merchants vehemently opposed Sunday Streets on the grounds that their businesses would be decimated if people couldn't drive to them, then practically begged the city to bring them back once they experienced the events for themselves. (The same thing happened in New York when they pedestrianized Broadway.) Noe plaza opponents fought their war by sabotaging community meetings, and now we'll probably never know whether the trial would have been successful. Neighborhood merchants killed the 90-day Sunday metering pilot, so we may never know whether that would've worked either.

The thread running through all of this is fear—that, most notably, drivers will be inconvenienced and business will be lost. It's true that concessions for cyclists may very well inconvenience other people, much in the same way that concessions for drivers have hobbled public transit and cycling as viable alternatives. That's the reality of urban planning, and the EIR was successful in both illuminating a lot of those impacts and forcing the city to consider mitigations. They should have done so at the start and avoided most of this drama. But now that it's over you should read Busch's ruling carefully and consider whether most of the assumptions you've made and parroted throughout the process are valid. (Hint: most of them aren't.)

Bike lanes and public plazas are relatively uncharted territory in American cities, but they probably aren't the apocalypse that you've foreseen either. They've been quite successful elsewhere in the world, but we'll never know for sure whether they work until we try them out. Thanks for understanding.

 
At 4:35 PM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

Well Shawn: that was a good rant, but really had absolutely nothing to do with my comments. Mine were specifically directed toward cyclists who feel entitled to NOT obey traffic laws. And many of us are pleased to see the SFPD beginning to issue tickets for those who fly thru stop lights and signs. I have come close to be hit several times at Valencia and 24th by cyclists, when I was IN the crosswalk. Not cool.

By the way, I love how Valencia is evolving. I walk it almost every morning for exercise to Market St. and back. I know the street well. and its becoming a great place for people, bikes AND cars. Bike lanes are fine, for the most part, but not everywhere. They can make cycling somewhat safer for bikes, but no guarantees. Cycling in a dense urban environment has some inherent dangers. Cyclists must also work within the car culture. I don't believe, as many others do, that car use is going away anytime soon in SF. I use my car, as well as walk a huge amount, cause it works for me. Period. Personal choice.

And for, the record, I'm not sure how long you have lived in SF..I have lived here now for 35 years. I know the city well and love it. To suggest that I leave it cause it's not right for me is simply small minded on your part and without merit.

I have no "fear" as you you say about being inconvenienced. What many of us would like to see is more cyclists obeying all applicable traffic laws, and paying their way (with required insurance and registration fees) to pay for all of the new cycling amenities on our streets.

 
At 9:02 PM, Anonymous Shawn Allen said...

Rocky's Dad, that you think my comment has nothing to do with you is a big problem, whether it's because you don't understand what I'm saying or that you're willfully ignorant of my point. You can't just call some people "entitled" and ignore the fact that entitlement is pretty well distributed among San Francisco's populace. And invalidating a cyclist's opinion by saying that they're shifting blame to drivers isn't really fair, either, when you consider just how much more entitled—by the most generally accepted definition of the word—drivers are than anyone else.

You want to talk about law breaking? I live in the Mission near South Van Ness, which many drivers use as a shortcut to avoid the frequently backed-up 101 extension that ends at Octavia. Guererro is similarly treated as a freeway by drivers, and though I haven't stood on either and measured I would estimate that at least half of all cars on both streets are traveling over the speed limit at any given moment. In my short walking commute to and from work I encounter few drivers (or cyclists!) who seem to think that it's their responsibility to stop (or even yield) at stop signs. On my bike I routinely encounter drivers who refuse to yield my right of way, and distracted pedestrians jaywalking in front of me without looking both ways.

That's the flip side of the "entitlement" coin: Everybody is guilty of traffic violations in San Francisco. But who poses a greater threat to you or me: the 150-lb. cyclist who can stop quickly or turn on a dime to avoid me, or the driver behind the wheel of a 2-ton hunk of steel that's much bigger and less maneuverable? If cyclists were hitting pedestrians often I would agree with you that SFPD should be targeting them, but last I checked the issue of cars hitting people was much more serious. The way you talk about cyclists it seems as though you're much more pleased to see SFPD ticketing cyclists than you would be if they were ticketing drivers, and that's just lame.

As is your suggestion that cyclists think "cars are going away any time soon". That's just complete and utter bullshit. Nobody denies that there are hundreds of thousands of registered vehicles in SF, or that both businesses and a sizable portion of residents rely on automotive transport. I don't know a single cyclist—and I know a lot of them—who thinks that all or even most people will ever take up cycling. Rob is quite right that such a scenario is fantasy. But it's similarly fantastical to believe that thousands more people won't take up cycling as the city becomes friendlier to bikes, as has been the case recently despite the injunction. It's just illogical to assume that people won't continue to adopt cycling, even if just for a small portion of trips. And it's hard for me to take seriously anyone who thinks that that fewer cars on our streets wouldn't be a good thing.

Look, I would be more than happy to pay a registration fee for my bike if I knew that it would help pay for infrastructure. But who in their right mind would have paid a dime to the city while the Bike Plan was tied up in court? (And I neither participate in or condone Critical Mass, so don't even try to pin that one on me.) Besides, do you think that DPT and SFPD would be able to administer and enforce a bike registration program at a profit? I sure don't. Cycling infrastructure is so cheap to build and maintain that I'll bet the city would save more by incentivizing bikes than they would make by requiring them to be licensed. But hey, if I could pay a reasonable fee to help get the streets paved—or even just to put to rest this stupid notion that cyclists aren't "paying their share"—I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Drivers hate Valencia. The lights are timed for 13 MPH.

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger rocky's dad said...

@ shawn allen: cool. some of your comments were valid. some I disagree with.

But I'm going to continue to vocally support the SFPD giving out tickets to cyclists who break the current laws. Doesn't mean that the drivers don't break laws cause they sure do..and if I drive thru a stop sign or stoplight without stopping, I'll sure as hell get a ticket.

But cyclists need to "catch up" with the laws at hand. Many don't want to. They will pay.

But let's be clear. There are named people, esp over at Streetsblog who have written that "the end of cars is near"..seriously, they have. Want me to name names? Not that the names matter, but some people (cyclists) think that way. Maybe a lot of them. Pure bs.

I can see why you come over here to write and comment. You realize you used the word "lame" in your last commentary. That would get you spanked and chastised by the word priest Matt Roth. He doesnt like that, despite the fact that he uses similar words, in headlines, himself. Shame!

So, happy to debate and talk with you over here. Good dialogue, but make sure you read more carefully what I also have to say. Thanks. have a great day!

 
At 9:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cyclist dead on Masonic. No - it was not a "solo fall", he was run over by a motorist. And - broken record please - the coward drove off.

 
At 9:27 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

So what? Please explain why you're making that comment to my blog. Am I supposed to be responsible for this accident? Is this supposed to be an argument for "calming" Masonic? Typical that we don't really know much about this accident yet, except that presumably the driver left the scene. But that doesn't prevent you from jumping to all kinds of conclusions.

 
At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet another example of motorists not thinking the rules apply to them.

 
At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fears about the dangerous thoroughfare were validated Friday night when a 21-year-old German tourist was killed in a hit-and-run while riding a bicycle southbound on Masonic Avenue near Turk Street"

Impossible. Tourists drive.

San Francisco's all important tourism industry will now take a hit due to our poorly designed streets and our motorists. A tourist is killed by a negligent driver, who drives off, and ANOTHER driver simply drives around the man lying in the street.

 
At 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this supposed to be an argument for "calming" Masonic?

Yes, it is.

Am I supposed to be responsible for this accident?

Yes, you share responsibility for it. And if you have an ounce of honestly, you'll admit that--to yourself if to nobody else.

 
At 9:20 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"An ounce of honesty"? Maybe you can dredge up an ounce of backbone before making this kind of charge anonymously. And help us all out by engaging in some moral/intellectual forensics here. This is a teaching/learning experience for us all. Trace my responsibility for an accident caused by a drunk driver at 10:40 at night.

 
At 9:13 PM, Anonymous Jesse said...

I certainly don't think you're responsible for the death of the cyclist and you won't be held responsible once the calming measures go through for Masonic. You'll be in a nice position to say "I told you so" if traffic gets delayed in the slightest and an undetermined amount of people are safer and alive as a result. You're welcome, Rob.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home