Gabriel Metcalf: Dissident?
 |
| Gabriel Metcalf |
An otherwise smart article in Bay City by Elizabeth Stevens about our "one-party" city is marred by this howler:
Gabriel Metcalf, who heads the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, or SPUR, a good-government group, was among the City Family folks who appeared at Lee’s announcement of the pension deal (though SPUR has not yet decided which pension measure to endorse). Metcalf has broken ranks with the City Family on a couple of issues in recent years, and he knows the cost. “In San Francisco, there seems to be a belief in thought crimes,” he said, “meaning that people who speak out, say things they are not supposed to say, will be shunned.”
I can't think of a single issue on which SPUR and Metcalf have "broken ranks" with City Family orthodoxy. In fact Metcalf is the embodiment of San Francisco progressivism on planning issues. So-called Smart Development, residential highrises, high-speed rail, the bike bullshit---he buys all the destructive doctrines that guide the Planning Department and City Hall as they go about busily degrading the quality of life in San Francisco.
Of course Metcalf will endorse Mayor Lee's weak version of pension reform.
Labels: City Government, SPUR
posted by Rob Anderson @ 2:54 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
I had an internship with SPUR a lifetime ago when John Jacobs ran the place. John, the sailor that he was, would wonder what happened to the SPUR rudder ...I would have to observe that the Board of Directors represents the "new generation" ...they now have the answers to how to fix the ship that is the City. We shall see where she ends up, hopefully not on a rocky Shoal.
SPUR is helping the city head for the rocks, since it endorses all the trendy planning ideas embraced by our Planning Dept. and City Hall. The most delusional: the dense development, transit corridors assumption that we can allow almost unlimited development anywhere near a major traffic corridor without making city traffic a lot worse than it has to be. The Market/Octavia Plan, the Parkmerced project, and the
Treasure Island project in particular are pure folly for a city that occupies a relatively small geographical area---and is already the second most densely populated city in the country, behind only New York City.
SPUR was on board with parkmerced, which all the most progressive supervisors voted against.
"already the second most densely populated city in the country, behind only New York City."
If we work together, we can be Number 1!
Rob - you need to take a deep breath and lose the hate. Or you will end up just like this guy
“Everybody in law enforcement gets a patrol car,” Katz told us, noting that he intends to spend $96,000 in the next 18 months for patrol cars for the Sheriff’s Office in Woodside – “to go catch the bicyclists that travel in a pack and not single file” – and on the coast.
The progressive supervisors voted against the Parkmerced project for rent control and affordable housing issues, not because they were skeptical of the horrendous traffic impact that project is going to have on that part of town.
Hate? Please provide an example from this blog. Besides, your quotation from that site doesn't show any hate from this guy. Cyclists who refuse to ride single file on busy two-lane coast roads shouldn't get tickets?
"Cyclists who refuse to ride single file on busy two-lane coast roads shouldn't get tickets?"
I don't think so. You apparently do.
Show the relevant infraction in the CA Motor Vehicle Code and maybe I'll agree with you.
Gabriel Metcalf: developers' tool
Anyone who disagrees with Rob is running the city into the rocks. Funny, Rob is the only one who sees it coming... How is that possible?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king.
You keep saying that while walking in circles.
Well then you should move to Kentucky, you would be king!
Don't you have a picture of him on a bike? That seals the deal right there.
What else floats in water? A bike-nut! Burn him!
Note: I'm not the same guy as the other bike-nut, I just really liked the name. At least you can't accuse me of being anon.
Typical that you comment without checking the links in the post. Yes, Metcalf is pleased to advertise himself as a bike guy. He nicely personifies SF progressivism on planning and transportation.
You of course are still anonymous in spite of your embrace of bike nut as a nickname.
Still waiting...
"Cyclists who refuse to ride single file on busy two-lane coast roads shouldn't get tickets?"
I don't think so. You apparently do.
Show the relevant infraction in the CA Motor Vehicle Code and maybe I'll agree with you
From the California Vehicle Code:
21202.(a)Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
And this:
21654.(a)Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b)If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is
not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a)of this section.
"21202.(a)Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway"
1) The shoulder is not the roadway. Highway 1 in San Mateo County has a substantial shoulder. A cyclist riding on the shoulder can be accompanied by a cyclist riding alongside, in the roadway, as close to the edge of the roadway as practicable, and not be in violation of 21202.
Also...
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
A rotating paceline, which is legal, implies that half of the paceline is overtaking the other half at all times, and thus in compliance with 21202.
Thanks for playing.
I show you vehicle code regs against the boorish behavior of some cyclists on narrow roads, and you now get all technical on me. County cops know obstructionism when they see it. You and your pals can try arguing the case when you get ticketed. Let me know how it comes out.
County cops know obstructionism when they see it.
They know a doughnut when they see it, but that's about it.
I just tell the cop to hurry up and write the ticket, go home, print out the standard rebuttal, mail it in and wait for the dismissal. If a cop writes a bogus ticket, it always gets dismissed. Judges are wise, especially when it comes to rulings on the adequacy of an EIR.
County cops don't know obstruction when they see it. There is bias against cycling and just because they are cops, sadly, doesn't mean they know the laws.
Anon is correct. Rob, you can't quote code and not know what it really means.
You bike nuts really should come off the crybaby routine, the notion that you're some kind of oppressed minority. The video of the guy in the city is not what bike nut and I have been talking about, which is how cyclists like to spread out on narrow roads and back up traffic. I cited the code that makes that illegal, but, not surprisingly, bike nut isn't satisfied. How can it be interpreted any other way? Whether people are actually doing it is of course a judgment call by the cop, but you can't deny that it's illegal.
The shoulder is most definitely part of the roadway, and it's where cyclists should be, if there's enough room and if the road conditions there aren't hazardous. That's certainly where I am riding most of the time, and I've got thousands of miles on my bike under my belt.
Sometimes there is a lot of gravel on the shoulder, in which case cyclists are justified in riding in the lane, still as far to the right as possible and single file.
Not only is this the law, but it's simple courtesy for other cyclists and drivers on the road. Riding two or more abreast creates a safety hazard for other cyclists who may wish to pass, as they must now swing out into the auto lane to get around the boors who are hogging the road.
Sadly, I run into so many other riders who care not about the law or about safety or common courtesy, and I can only hope that Darwinism manages to come through in the end.
"how cyclists like to spread out on narrow roads and back up traffic. I cited the code that makes that illegal, but, not surprisingly, bike nut isn't satisfied. How can it be interpreted any other way? Whether people are actually doing it is of course a judgment call by the cop, but you can't deny that it's illegal."
Now you're being ridiculous again. Nobody said anything about liking to back up traffic. Impeding traffic is illegal. Riding 2 abreast is NOT illegal.
If you want to pontificate, it might be useful to have a fucking clue about what you're talking about.
Post a Comment
<< Home