The Wiggle
What does the lower Haight neighborhood think about the Wiggle? Check out the comments when Haighteration does a post on the Wiggle here and here.
The city's Fell/Oak bike lane project was designed, first of all, to make cyclists "comfortable" riding on the Panhandle, but also to help them get to the Wiggle faster so they can speed through the lower Haight neighborhood. From the MTA's description of what it calls, without irony, the "Oak Street and Fell Street Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project":
In addition to carrying tens of thousands of cars each day, Oak Street and Fell Street are vital links in San Francisco's bicycle network, connecting the Panhandle bike path and the “Wiggle” bicycle route that serve thousands of cyclists. Oak and Fell Streets are the flattest, most direct connection from Market Street to the Panhandle path, Golden Gate Park and western neighborhoods.
The city's Fell/Oak bike lane project was designed, first of all, to make cyclists "comfortable" riding on the Panhandle, but also to help them get to the Wiggle faster so they can speed through the lower Haight neighborhood. From the MTA's description of what it calls, without irony, the "Oak Street and Fell Street Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project":
In addition to carrying tens of thousands of cars each day, Oak Street and Fell Street are vital links in San Francisco's bicycle network, connecting the Panhandle bike path and the “Wiggle” bicycle route that serve thousands of cyclists. Oak and Fell Streets are the flattest, most direct connection from Market Street to the Panhandle path, Golden Gate Park and western neighborhoods.
Labels: Cycling and Safety, District 5, Neighborhoods, Panhandle, Pedestrian Safety, Punks on Bikes, The Wiggle
posted by Rob Anderson @ 11:08 AM
25 comments
25 Comments:
I think it is time to require bike riders to carry proof of insurance and a photo I.D.
The bicyclists who wear headphones especially drive me nuts as they are completely tuned out to the traffic around them.
This video confirms my hunch that a lot of the accidents we read about between bikes and cars could actually be caused by the bike riders themselves.
Digging back into the archives. Bored? Out of things to say? Know you are losing? Know you have actually already lost?
The lower Haight neighborhood is the loser here, since the city is sanctioning---even celebrating!---the notion that cyclists can race through that neighborhood with no consideration for the people who live there.
"Out of things to say?" There aren't enough hours in the day to properly cover all the bad policies coming out of City Hall.
How about you show some injury statistics before you start jumping to conclusions. It's probably 'not particularly unsafe for anyone' or are you going to use your double standard?
We have to wait for people to be injured---or another pedestrian to be killed---before the city acts? In reality, it's hard for the city to back down in promoting the Wiggle now. Like Critical Mass the city has been busily enabling cyclists to speed through the lower Haight neighborhood for years. Maybe City Hall can provide pedestrians a police escort to cross neighborood streets like it provides Critical Mass with a police escort every month.
"We have to wait for people to be injured---or another pedestrian to be killed---before the city acts?"
Oh man, the irony is WAY too rich here.
Maybe you can unpack it for us, Mike, since BikeThink provides you with the tools to do the job.
Wow, you are that blind to your own hypocrisy?
Masonic: actual people dying/injured. You take stance that city shouldn't fix problem that you believe isn't there.
Wiggle: no one being hurt/killed. You take stance that city should fix non-existent problem.
Probably top 5 best comments from you. Well done. *slow clap*
Got it Rob, Masonic is not a danger, where people have been injured and killed, but the Wiggle is. If you had any shred of credibility, you would acknowledge that you have a complete double standard when it comes to modes of transportation and "safety".
Those two deaths didn't happen on Masonic, yet you're using Critical mass and a sidewalk bike injury that's not even close to the Wiggle.
You're perfectly fine with unsafe speeds and dangerous driving on Masonic, so long as there aren't enough statistical deaths and injuries to satisfy your standards. The MTA never said it was unsafe, you did. They even site dangerous speeds time and again which you so carefully ignore. You haven't come up with a shred of evidence to support the Wiggle is unsafe for anyone, yet you're fine to just shut it down.
Of course I'm not at all "fine with unsafe speeds and dangerous driving on Masonic" or anywhere else, for that matter. Like a lot of you bike dudes, James, your problem is that you don't read the links and/or the relevant documents, though I go to the trouble to link them for you.
The city's own study of Masonic---and the accident numbers it contains---show that Masonic isn't particularly dangerous at all, especially considering the volume of traffic in handles every day. The MTA has in fact claimed that safety is the primary motive for pushing the bike project on Masonic (See page 2, of the MTA's Masonic Avenue Study, "Goals & Objectives").
Even though two pedestrians have been killed in the city recently by speeding cyclists, the city is encouraging cyclists to speed through the lower Haight neighborhood on the Wiggle. Do we have to wait for deaths and injuries before we conclude that this is a bad idea? No one's talking about "shutting the Wiggle down," though now that you mention it...
That sure was a long winded way of saying "I have a double standard."
What does the city's own study of the Wiggle say? Not your study (which is worthless) - the City's study?
Does the city have a study of the Wiggle comparable to the Masonic study? If so I haven't seen it. I of course don't need to do a "study" to learn that speeding, reckless cyclists are a safety hazard, especially to pedestrians.
"I of course don't need to do a "study" to learn that speeding, reckless cyclists are a safety hazard, especially to pedestrians."
This thread has been taken to another level. I want to keep laughing except this is real life and your unbelievable (and apparently unseen) hypocrisy is costing real people life and limb. This is actually all really really sad.
I of course don't need to do a "study" to learn that speeding, reckless cyclists are a safety hazard, especially to pedestrians.
No pedestrians have been killed by cyclists on the wiggle in history, making it not particularly unsafe.
"I want to keep laughing except this is real life and your unbelievable (and apparently unseen) hypocrisy is costing real people life and limb.This is actually all really really sad."
Oh, Mike, please don't be sad, especially so soon after laughing. People---even your cat---might begin to worry.
"No pedestrians have been killed by cyclists on the wiggle in history, making it not particularly unsafe."
Not yet, anyhow. But you raise an interesting question about the accident history of the Wiggle---which you should capitalize, by the way. If the city isn't keeping score, the neighborhood will have to do it themselves.
Not yet, anyhow. But you raise an interesting question about the accident history of the Wiggle---which you should capitalize, by the way.
I would like Mr. Anderson to tell us the name of the planet upon which "Not yet, anyhow." is a sentence, given that we are taking grammar lessons.
Sentence fragments aren't necessarily all bad. My fragment is clear and succinct, which is the main thing. But I suspect it's the thought you don't like, not my sentence structure.
By the way, you should reconsider the use of "upon" instead of plain old "on," which doesn't need any extra help from "up."
Not yet, anyhow. But you raise an interesting question about the accident history of the Wiggle---which you should capitalize, by the way.
It starts to sound like you are actively *hoping* that a cyclist will kill a pedestrian on the Wiggle.
Not so. Let me repeat my common sense argument: Since two pedestrians have been killed recently by speeding, negligent cyclists, why is the city actively encouraging cyclists to speed through the lower Haight neighborhood?
By the way, one of the main points this post is making: the Fell/Oak bike lane project was explicitly designed to help cyclists speed toward the Wiggle, which is in a densely-populated residential neighborhood. Just bad public policy formulated by the Bicycle Coalition and its many enablers in City Hall.
By the way, one of the main points these commenters is making: Masonic's current layout was explicitly designed to help motorists speed toward the Fell/Oak or Geary, which is in a densely-populated residential neighborhood. Just bad public policy formulated by the AAA and its many enablers in City Hall.
We don't really know that whoever designed Masonic Avenue had any special intentions, except to provide a street that allows traffic to move.
We know that the Fell/Oak bike project was designed in relation to the Wiggle, since the MTA tells us that in the quotation and the link I provide.
The reality is that Masonic now has either a stop sign or a stoplight at every single intersection between Fell and Geary. That makes it pretty hard for a would-be speeder to do much speeding.
And, as I point out once again, the city's own studies don't show that Masonic is dangerous at all.
The reality is that the Wiggle now has either a stop sign or a stoplight at every single intersection between Fell/Oak and Market. That makes it pretty hard for a would-be speeder to do much speeding.
And, as I point out once again, the city's own studies don't show that the Wiggle is dangerous at all.
Yes, the Wiggle has stop signs, but of course cyclists are encouraged by the city to ignore them, which is not the case with motorists on Masonic.
Being a remedial reader is evidently your issue, along with gutlessness, since you hide behind anonymity.
Post a Comment
<< Home