Rob Anderson's commentary on San Francisco politics from District 5
Labels: Cycling and Safety, Videos
posted by Rob Anderson @ 9:43 AM
links to this post
All homeless, your point?
I'm glad you're pointing out Stanley's excellent assessment on vehicle's behaving badly. Here's another one:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azCmxIxPLWo
Average speed on Masonic at 40 Miles per hour. Difficult for pedestrians too, and red and yellow runners. Sounds about as safe as walking on the sidewalks with crack-heads on bikes.
It'd be pretty easy to spend all day shooting videos of bicycle violations. Just today I was traveling eastbound past the new, disruptive few blocks of bicycle lane on Oak Street. One bicyclist decided he didn't like how fast his cycling bretheren were traveling so he went around the pillars meant to keep car traffic and bicycle traffic separate (because according to the SFBC, separated bike lanes are the only real solution... when they decide they want to use them occasionally.) and ducked into the car traffic lane. Just because he felt like it. Same thing as folks blowing stop signs, going on red lights, riding on sidewalks, basically turning transit into a circus. What's the point of offering bike lanes when the cyclists are just going to do whatever they feel like anyways?Of course the natural reaction of cyclists when confronted with their wrong doing is always "well cars kill more people". This tu quoque (look it up) argument is logically fallacious, and a complete deflection in responsibility.
First - It'd be pretty easy to spend all day shooting videos of bicycle violations.Second - One bicyclist decided he didn't like how fast his cycling bretheren were traveling so he went around the pillars meant to keep car traffic and bicycle traffic separate (because according to the SFBC, separated bike lanes are the only real solution... when they decide they want to use them occasionally.) and ducked into the car traffic lane.I guess you need to try harder to find violations because that is not a violation. I'm sure it made you feel better to type it up, but it's not illegal.
It's so horrible when vehicles need to behave and abide by laws so they don't kill pedestrians and bikers.
Murphs says, "you need to try harder to find violations"One need to try at all to find cyclists violating the California Vehicle Code, one merely needs to walk down the street with your eyes open. Over the past decade bicycle haven Valencia St. has become more and more unpleasant to walk along. Being physically threatened by thugs on bikes who think they deserve privilege, who act like pedestrians are merely slow moving pylons they can easily swerve around is no fun.Murphs says, "One bicyclist decided he didn't like how fast his cycling bretheren were traveling so he went around the pillars"Sure the cyclists has a legal right but this indicates why it won't matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars the City spends for the recent arrivals and Extended Stay Tourists: they'll never be satisfied. And forget courtesy, they're special.One Way Street: no problem, we're special, Red Light, merely accelerate--no one tickets us, Sidewalk/ Pedestrian Crosswalk: You Better Watch Out!
It never ceases to gall me that in nearly every instance of cyclists flouting the laws for the sake of their own personal convenience, the immediate response is to point the finger elsewhere = "What about cars!? Drivers do that all the time?!" Huh? That suddenly makes it OK? Never do they directly acknowledge or respond to clear evidence of their own negligence. Why is it so difficult to own up to it and state: "Well, yeah. A lot of us do do this. Sometimes I do too. But it's just easier and faster for me. And my own safety is ultimately more important. To me. I mean, man. Have you seen some of those streets? Crazy! I need to get on the sidewalk to protect myself. And yeah, me me me." Boom. Done? Why so hard? Because, oh... that might tarnish the saintly self-annointed halo you've crowned upon yourselves since: "Hey, I'm green. I don't own a car. I'm a blameless angel do gooder." [canard]And yes cyclists, it is negligence if you strike a pedestrian on a sidewalk. Not an "accident". And accident would infer that both parties have an equal right of way. And that an unforeseen collision occurred. Not so. Cyclists knowing choosing their own personal convenience over the safety of pedestrians - and selfishly rolling the dice that 'nothing will happen' is negligence. Plain and simple. And therefore legally liable for issuing an at fault judgment. Or another eyeroller response: "Only homeless people do that." Ha. I don't own a car or a bike and in my 8 years of daily walking because of that, I've been hit 3 times by 'responsible looking' cyclists. And nearly flatlined over countless times by the same demographic. Don't defensively and irresponsibility blame it all on meth. That's a self-serving delusion.
Ha. I don't own a car or a bike and in my 8 years of daily walking because of that, I've been hit 3 times by 'responsible looking' cyclists. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times - get a life you fucking loser.
"get a life you fucking loser." -- Yet again, another vivid example of cyclists intentionally failing to address the issue at hand - that they repeated flout the law and often ride on sidewalks, thus putting pedestrians in jeopardy. Instead, point the finger elsewhere and entirely change the topic of discussion. Smoke and mirrors. With insults to boot. Your immaturity and ultra-defensiveness speak volumes. Now please acknowledge and comment on the issue of cyclists on sidewalks. Thank you.
Now please acknowledge and comment on the issue of cyclists on sidewalksHomeless crack addicts. I don't have a very good way to solve that problem other than capital punishment. Do you have better ideas?Now, can you please tell us what we can do about the epic amount of jaywalking being done in SF? I keep getting blood on my nice shiny car when I run over jaywalkers.
Finger Pointing Take 3: "Look at the Meth Freaks and Jaywalkers! Over there! That direction!!" Frustratingly comical. And still immaturely refusing to acknowledge that 'non-crackhead' cyclicts often ride on sidewalks. (We've all seen instances of this. Again, why is this so impossible to admit?) Welcome to the never-ending hypocritical entitlement of the cyclist contingent. Preferring to perceive themselves as persecuted and benighted. And never on the wrong side of traffic laws. Only self-righteous victims. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. [sigh]
Post a Comment
Create a Link
View my complete profile