Will Bikes Lanes Be A Casualty Of A Head-On Collision Over Polk?

How about a third plan: leave everything as is.
It works just fine.

Yes, let’s cave to the NIMBY’s!

News flash to the negotiators, the NIMBYs will be unhappy with everything you propose.

I have been cycling for 20 years on the streets of San Francisco (and in San Diego and other places before that) and I have never been in a collision with an automobile. I know anecdotal evidence isn’t worth much, but I rarely even have near misses anymore, now that I am am a father and have adjusted my riding style to be safer. I always hate it when I have to swing out into traffic because some self-centered automobile driver has decided to use the bike lane as his personal double-parking space.
It is pretty funny that the auto-centric folks have degenerated 100% into Straw Man debating. They aren’t even trying to talk about the issues anymore.
@futurist I do like Amsterdam biking. And we am going to bring it here. Don’t believe me? Just watch, listen and learn. 20% by 2020 is official city policy now. We will get to 20%, probably not by 2020 but in your lifetime.
Don’t like it? Then move to the suburbs.

NoeValleyJim, our favorite car hater wrote:
20% by 2020 is official city policy now. We will get to 20%, probably not by 2020 but in your lifetime. Don’t like it? Then move to the suburbs.
What NVJ does not want to see is that the city is becoming more moderate, especially as all the new residential towers are filled up. City policy will change. In our lifetime we will have a normal, moderate, centrist government, of the Feinstein type. Many of the extreme ideas will pass, property rights will be respected, and San Francisco will not become Amsterdam west.

We will see conifer. What I see happening is that the extreme pro-car types are all Boomers, who won’t be in the saddle much longer. Younger people are much more environmentally aware and much more likely to support transit and bicycle friendly policies.
“property rights”? You mean the right of car drivers to control city property and do what they wish with it? Don’t make me laugh.

Apparently left out of the discussion is that Polk St is the only flat option for cyclists to cross the city from south to north.
Cars have taken over Van Ness, Larkin & Hyde, Franklin & Gough. West and East of that are Pac Heights and Nob Hill/Russian Hill.
This is much bigger than Polk Gulch (although as of my last visit, it’s a stagnant retail area without much obvious new investment, that could use an infusion of new customers).

let’s review –
– only 15% of customers on the area of Polk arrive by car, 85% arrive by muni, bicycle or by foot.
– By servicing the needs of the 85% or their customers better merchants are likely to increase their business and offset any ‘loss’ of the 15% of customers who arrive by car.
– the maximum number of parking spots that might be removed is 170 out of a total of 2100 on street parking and 5100 on and off street parking withing a one block radius of the proposed area
– an average of 2 collisions between cars and pedestrians and cyclists occur every month on this stretch of Polk
– cycling in ALL cities is on the upswing for several demographic reasons including individuals with large loans or debt coming out of school postpone buying cars and homes while they service student/credit card debt.
– separated bike lanes are good for cyclists AND drivers (including muni bus drivers) by preventing accidents and conflicts that allow traffic to continue to flow and keep down emergency calls due to collisions with moving cars or parked cars ‘dooring’ cyclists which cost money and slow traffic which impacts drivers more than cyclists when they occur.
– Bike lanes make PEDESTRIANS safer too. In NYC, on streets with bike lanes, when controlling for other factors, the DOT found that serious crashes on streets with bike lanes were 40 percent less deadly than on other streets.
so the merchants have a ‘common sense’ concern about reduced parking until you look at the data and realize that perception is not reality, bike lanes are good for cyclist, drivers, and pedestrians. By providing a safer environment for all everyone saves time and money.
Finally, on the issue of increase accidents as the number of cyclist rise. This is true, to a point. Studies in other major cities show that as cycling rises so does accidents until you reach a certain critical mass of cyclists, no pun intended. After that point, drivers become far more aware of cyclists and adjust their driving and the number of accidents begins to fall
NYC Cycling accident rate chart
http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BikePedGraphNYC1.jpg
NYC DOT 2000 Safety Study
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/08/17/action-plan-ups-nycs-commitment-to-ped-safety-but-is-nypd-on-board/

Anyone know how the meeting went yesterday? Did it turn into a backyard brawl?

Trouble is, you and lyqwyd seem to forget that those young white male cyclists will eventually (we hope) ALSO become 50 and 60 y/o humans and will (largely) be using their car. How radical is that?
Um, I’m fairly certain that they know that, and are saying that young folks these days are showing VERY different behavior young in life (with regard to driving), which will likely lead to VERY different behavior later in life (with regard to driving). How radical is that?
Even though I make considerably more money in real terms than my parents did at my age (35), my wife and I have never even remotely considered owning more than one car. My parents never owned fewer than two, even before they had kids. You see this at population-wide scale as well – auto-ownership rates and driving rates down for 30 year olds, not only compared to 50 year olds currently, but also compared to how many vehicles/miles 50 year olds had/drove when they were 30. The trend is clearly down across the board.

@Really?
Were the numbers reported by a pedestrian/cycling focused website? Yes. Are they disputed by the SFMTA? Not that I see since the numbers cited were provided by the SFMTA or NYC DOT respectively.
The 85/15 ratio is straight from SFMTA
new survey data from the SF Municipal Transportation Agency shows that only about 15 percent of people get to Polk Street using an automobile, while the rest either come by foot, bike, or transit. Drivers also reported spending the least amount of money per week compared to those who came by other modes.
The findings reaffirm those of a study on Columbus Avenue in 2008, conducted by the SF County Transportation Authority, which found that only 14 percent of people on that street arrived by car.
here’s a link to the SFMTA survey.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Polk-Interept-Survey-Findings.pdf
The parking figures as well are from the SFMTA
The SFMTA has actually refined its parking counts, and now reports a total of 5,100 parking spaces within a block of the project corridor — 800 more than previously known.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/polk-parking.png
The accident stats come directly from the SF police data.
Crash statistics alone, however, make the need for safety improvements clear. Police data shows that between 2006 and 2011, 53 pedestrians and 69 bicycle riders were injured by drivers on Polk. That’s an average of about two people per month.
And the NYC data is directly from the NYC Department of Transport, which I provided links to.
The overall upswing in cycle is a national trend reported everywhere and the increased safety of separate bike lanes is also well documented effect.
So I am not sure what numbers you think are in dispute since the numbers are from SFMTA themselves.

All the commenters above that are assuming that a human male’s quadriceps, hamstrings, gastrocnemiuses, etc. shrivel up and whither away at age fifty, relegating them (largely) to automobile transport, are making me laugh out loud.
You don’t know any cyclists over the age of 50? Really?
Although I haven’t reached that mark, I agree with Invented that I don’t commute by bike to be cool. I don’t have a fixie, I’m not a twenty-something and I don’t engage in the kind of anti-social cycling behavior that, for example, the movie Premium Rush seemed to valorize.

I don’t think anyone said that ALL cyclists are men, but the majority are. Fact. Yea, some are women, girls, old men, old girls, blah blah blah. so what?
And the only real anger I have, as others should, is directed at some of those (well, sometimes a lot) of cyclists fly thru the MARKED CROSSWALK when I or others are in it. Or fly thru the stop signs. Ever try driving north or south on Scott St. near Fell? Not one cyclists I have seen EVER stops at a stop sign or even bothers to slow down.
When we start seeing a shift in just that kind of behavior, we might see more support for cyclists.
But really, isn’t this discussion primarily centered around removing a LOT of parking spaces on Polk St. and how it will affect the merchants, and shouldn’t we be listening to their concerns and balancing out their needs with others?

@futurist
“And the only real anger I have, as others should”
Thanks for telling us what we should feel.
“But really, isn’t this discussion primarily centered around removing a LOT of parking spaces on Polk St…”
170 out of a total of 2100 on street parking and 5100 on and off street parking withing a one block radius of the proposed area.
Doesn’t seem like a lot to me.
“… and how it will affect the merchants, and shouldn’t we be listening to their concerns and balancing out their needs with others?”
I’ve and others repeatedly shown you evidence pointing out that:
1) The majority of shoppers do not arrive by car
2) Drivers spend the least on a monthly basis
3) Merchants have made similar claims in the past that have been absolutely false.
Just because you ignore facts doesn’t make them go away.
Now nobody here has said the merchants should simply be ignored, but they should also not have veto power over the project. The needs of all road users should be considered, not just drivers and merchants. Especially given that main issue for these changes are safety. I put health and safety of everybody over the financial benefits of a few merchants, especially when the claim that these changes will cause them financial harm is very questionable.

Where did you get the 170 out of 2100 ON STREET parking? The SFMTA says 170 out of about 360 spaces I thought?

I heard the SFMTA say it was looking into removing 100% of the parking on Polk it was considering removing! ALL of the parking!!!

@R
No, the most bike friendly plan would remove 100% of parking from ONE SIDE of polk street and provide a protected bike lane, next to parked cars (similar to what has been done in GG Park, see the link to the graphic below). The total number of spots would be 170 out of an existing 320 directly on Polk, an existing 2100 spots of on street parking within a one block radius of Polk, and 5100 on and off street spots within a one block radius of Polk.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/6172400271_5c52093ffe_b.jpg

@all asking about 170
320 spots on the affected parts of Polk St, but 2100 spots within 1 block. Total of 5000 or so when you include existing off street parking. It’s not a big deal to have to go 1 additional spot, so it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that there’s a ton of parking around the affected streets.
These numbers are from the MTA study (see name link).
If you went 2 blocks (still a perfectly reasonable distance to walk) that number would go way higher.
At my old apartment I often had to park 4 blocks away. Inconvenient certainly, but it wasn’t the end of the world, and I certainly wouldn’t have traded other people’s limbs or lives for more convenient parking.
@anon94123
I don’t even know what you are talking about, I said 170 as well. And certainly never said 8 blocks, stop making stuff up.

And for like the thousandth time these improvements are not just for bikes.
The bulb outs are for pedestrian safety, they require eliminations of parking spaces as well.
Bike lanes remove conflicts between cars, meaning drivers can get to their destinations faster and with less interference with drivers, and drivers often (illegally) use bike lanes for double parking, meaning other drivers will be out of your way when they double park, which we all know happens all the time.
So as has been mentioned numerous times these improvements are not just for the benefit of cyclists, but for all road users.

@futurist
“Total bs that bike lanes remove conflicts from cars.”
Nope, just simple truth. Most cyclists prefer to be in a lane when there is one. I don’t see too many cyclists in the auto full width lanes on Market St or Fell or Valencia these days, except when there’s a car parked in the bike lane.
“But cars dare not, even for a minute, encroach on a bike lane”
Total BS from you. The new bike lanes on 8th st far more frequently have cars driving in them than cyclists can be found on the auto lanes. The cars in the bike lane are almost always illegally trying to cut ahead of drivers following the law and staying in their designated space. When the cyclists are in the car lanes it’s almost always because they are legally turning left (the bike lane is on the right side).
Yes, we know that there are more cyclists today than in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, that’s exactly why these improvements are needed. And for the 1001 time, these improvements
Things change and the city needs to change as well, sorry if you don’t like it.
Cesar Chaves street has no relevance to Polk St.
Other than reiterating your hatred of cyclists and hipsters, was there any point to your post?

“Look at the incredible amount of ADDITIONAL congestion the new bike lanes will cause on Cesar Chavez leading to 101. And yet, very few cyclists will use that route. What a waste of money”
Cesar Chavez to Third is a smart route right to the burgeoning residential and commercial areas –DogPatch, Mission Bay, India Basin, Pier 70, Hunter’s Point. We’re building basic infrastructure so we have transit options.
They might be lightly travelled at first but watch what happens — those lanes are going to be hopping.
All the more so when connected to a future cycling highway southward (linking us to S. San Franc, Burlingame, Brisbane and others).

“let’s review –
– only 15% of customers on the area of Polk arrive by car, 85% arrive by muni, bicycle or by foot.
– By servicing the needs of the 85% or their customers better merchants are likely to increase their business and offset any ‘loss’ of the 15% of customers who arrive by car.”
Seriously, that is a weak statistic. Break out bike, walk and muni and u see that bike is less than 3%.
This plan hurts muni, which most people use,
By diverting money to a tiny fraction of commuters.
I don’t see the young and old divide. I see practical vs dreamers. In 50 yrs, the number of bike commuters will still be

Geary BART would be great. But if you reallocate the funds for this Polk project to GBART it would barely cover the cost of coffee and donuts. That’s just for the pre-groundbreaking teams.
And how does a E-W project for regional travel solve a N-S local problem?

What about Option AWESOME?
http://i42.tinypic.com/2cda7h3.jpg

Your modified drawing is obviously unrealistic soccermom.
There are no transvestite hookers in it.

” i will remind you in 10 years of your bad prediction when we hit 10% of all trips.”
Zero chance. That will never happen. It will never reach 5% if you actually include all transportation trips in the city

“I thought I read that only 3% of the journeys in San Francisco were on bikes? How did the bike coalition get so much power in this city?”
So lyqwyd doesn’t stroke out, I’ll say it. This isn’t about bicycles.
It’s about pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety, and about improving the quality of life in the neighborhood and city. I haven’t ridden a bicycle in 20+ years, but I am 100% behind this. Who wouldn’t want safer streets, wider sidewalks to stroll on a Sunday morning after brunch, and less cars to trip over?
And Jill, as more people bicycle, it reduces congestion and car traffic, which is one of MUNI’s biggest problems. So this will help MUNI.

No, it’s not called Democracy. It’s calling caving in to ultra bullying tactics and influence peddling by the bike nuts.
And it’s about a number of our city leaders who only fall in line with the current, trend of the moment, without consideration for other points of view.
And like R, I too am all for better pedestrian safety, more liveable streets, greener sidewalks, more trees, and a BALANCED approach to cycling that accurately reflects the REAL amount of cycling, not some far flung “projection” of the future.

futurist is talking about “ultra-bullying” regarding cyclists. He obviously has not see a room packed with “friends and family” from merchants that also happen to come from outside SF.
The most ridiculous arguments are thrown by the old car monopoly. This shows desperation.
What’s next? Death panels?

Then you were probably THAT guy sitting in his car not getting the memo 😉
Critical Mass doesn’t represent all cyclists, only a fringe. It’s akin to say the Tea Party represents the GOP.
Also: “reasonable and balanced” in futurist-speak means car-centric-status-quo. It’s not working.

And a cab driver cut me once. They’re all evil. Lyft rules! (that was a joke).

indeed.
lol at the Cesar Chavez comment which basically says “they will not be used because it’s a freaking highway today”.
This amounts to saying that in the 1900s they should not pave any roads because there are not enough cars.
futurist sound more like a passeiste.

The SFMTA study about shoppers and such seems pretty weak. Sit back and ask yourself whom the more desirable customer is – a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or someone who traveled in their own car with a trunk, backseat, and other room to load all sorts of purchased goods and transport the stuff back home – wherever home may be?
If street width is the problem with the current configuration, why not remove another travel lane, making Polk Street a one-way street (southbound?) to accommodate both street parking on both sides with removals for bulb outs and red curbs AND 2-way protected cycle tracks? I’m guessing this has not been considered because it would require moving the 19-Polk over to Larkin, but this seems worth that battle to me.

My guess is the SFMTA Livable Streets division and the SFMTA MUNI bus folks consider themselves two separate fiefdoms, and the two avoid collaboration at all costs. Even when it makes sense to maybe reduce Polk Street to a single one-way travel lane and leave the 19-Polk on Larkin instead of turning at Geary northbound. Sigh.

Worst comments on this thread: by MOD;
“You don’t NEED a car to shop”
“…driving the SUV to load up…”
Thanks MOD, for once again:
1. telling us how to live.
2. using the tired “SUV” to add extra disdain, although meaningless, to the conversation.
Lovely.

Watcher, then you might tell the people who did the survey how to do their jobs. Kinda like criticizing the thermometer.
Or do you have any proof to substantiate your claim?

futurist – My statements aren’t telling anyone how to live, just describing facts. And ironically it is you who are telling people how to live through your denial of those facts.
If you deny that you do not need a car to shop then you’re basically saying that you must use a car to shop. Now that is telling people how to live.
Pure gold, keep it coming.

If anything, Polk Street merchants should BEG for neighbors to have a car-free lifestyle!
If and were living on Polk and shopping for items big enough to have to need to park on Polk, I’d go to whatever big box in SOMA or Colma that is 30% cheaper. Same thing for food. Why bother with an underwhelming yet expensive food markets when you just have to cross VN for Whole Foods, or go to NB for TJ’s for cheaper stuff.
{copy/paste your granny strawman’s argument here)

Anon,
Not a strident bike activist. I am an occasional driver but I want cars to share the road. But archaic monopolies have a very long half-life. But half-life it is.
Painting the other guy as an extremist is phase II in the “what to do when losing an argument” handbook. LOL.
I’ll also just copy/paste futurist’s prose:
futurist:
It’s calling caving in to ultra bullying tactics and influence peddling by the bike nuts.
My comment:
futurist is talking about “ultra-bullying” regarding cyclists. He obviously has not see a room packed with “friends and family” from merchants that also happen to come from outside SF.
futurist:
Oh, I guess lol has never been in the middle of, or seen what has taken place downtown during Critical Mass. Attacking cars, spewing obscenities at drivers who HAPPEN to be leaving work caught in the middle of the boys tricyling party, giving them the finger..? No.
What futurist is basically saying is that he bases his opinion on the most extreme of cyclists. They do NOT represent the immense majority of cyclists who just want their share of the road, and all these potential cyclists who fear cars when they see them speeding at 30MPH just 2 feet away from a bicycle.

I think Jamie’s idea is good too.
This one-way solution was debated in an earlier version of this debate.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2013/04/polk_street_showdown_bike_lanes_versus_parking_local_op.html
Dan at March 24, 2013 1:15 PM
Too bad it is shelved though. That would save parking spaces, create a practical and safe bike path, and allow for much needed northbound bike traffic in the lowest portion of Polk.

@lol
I may be misunderstanding, but I think Jamie was suggesting only a single lane for traffic, I believe the one-way proposal that was part of the MTA options kept 2 lanes, both going in the same direction, but I could be wrong.
I like a single lane going in one direction. In that scenario I think the parking should be made angled and all on 1 side of the street (that way you keep the same amount of parking, but don’t have backups due to people parallel parking.
Then there would be room for a bidirectional bike lane, and wider sidewalks.
The downside of course is that you would have to move one or both directions of MUNI to a different street, which might be problematic.

Anon,
Why do you use “he” instead of “you”? Just own up to it.
You’ll notice I post much more on a few issues like city cycling. I had my first bike when the Apollo program was still sending people on the moon, lol. In total I have commuted for 30 years on 3 continents and have a few scars to show for it. I am a driver too, and not a bike nut or an extremist. I think everyone should be allowed have the option to cycle.
Painting others the color you want them to be is disingenuous.

“$510 million could but a LOT of busses!” SFWeekly
A question about SFMTA policy…Why remove and propose more removal of on street parking throughout the city on one hand, and then claim that parking has become more limited and needs to be regulated and purchased through the SFMTA by additional meters being installed in many residential areas?
Why did the SFMTA use over 510 MILLION dollars in funds that were set aside to be used to FIX MUNI to instead reduce traffic lanes and create “street calming” at the intersection of Dolores and Market?
510 MILLION buys a lot of busses!
My answer is these decisions have everything to do with increased revenue for the SFMTA, as well as keeping certain politically active groups happy, and little to do with making traffic flow smoother and MUNI run better.
And finally, NOBODY has mentioned how much the Polk project would cost, and that is because NOBODY knows. I promise you relocation of curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, signals, lighting, sewers, pavements, etc. will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

No, it isn’t.

@Milkshake, ask someone involved in construction, like me! You cannot relocate sidewalk widths without relocating the utilities (including lights and sewers) and ALSO relocating the grading of the road surface. This is EXPENSIVE Public Union labor. I noticed earlier people talking about a one way road with diagonal parking on one side, but that type of arrangement does not allow for ADA parking access. Each block would need spaces set aside for handicapped with another space adjacent being removed for access.
Everyone acts like the bike path is as easy as painting a couple of lines, but that is not what was proposed.
The 510 million for the reconstruction of the intersection of Market and Dolores comes from the SFMTA website, as well as SFWeekly and Metermadness.

“”lol at the Cesar Chavez comment which basically says “they will not be used because it’s a freaking highway today”.
This amounts to saying that in the 1900s they should not pave any roads because there are not enough cars.””
you must be joking. The difference from cars in the early 1900s to today is that it was new technology that has continued to improve over time and become moee affordable. THe same argument can be made for air travel. but it cannot be made for bike use increasing in the future. While there have been some advance in bike gearing, there is not a technologically advance here that is going to skyrocket the number of commuter cyclists.
Regarding someones comment about who takes a survey.. my guess is more out of work people and people not in a hurry stop to take surveys.
Street surveys are utterly unreliable as there is a selection bias. the kind of people of stop for surveys are not representative of Polk users, just representative of Polk users who stop to take surveys

Are you joking Jake?

I’m starting to like you Jill.:)
And, yup, the cyclists are largely a bunch of white, well off, young males, with a LOUD voice and a bunch of no-backbone leaders in our city government, who love kissing their bike butts.
@ MOD: at one time I actually thought you knew something about construction costs. Now we all know you are dealing with 10 yo data. thanks for sharing.
A bulb-out for just ONE side of 4 corners cost between $50-100k each. they are great upgrades, for sure but very expensive.
You might want to start looking at Means Construction Costs for public works projects, dated 2013. Just a thought.

FedUp – Are you sure a significant amount of utilities must be relocated? Why would a sewer need to be moved when a 6″ slab of concrete is layered on top with a couple of feet of soil inbetween?
Access points need to be maintained though that’s not nearly as expensive as relocation. I’ve seen iron “collars” placed over manhole openings to extend their height to the new surface and similar stuff for electrical and plumbing vaults. Even surface gutters can be worked around by leaving them in-place and bridging them with a slab of steel or other material like they do for parklets.
Sure, some stoplights and streetlights -might- need to move but that’s not a given considering we don’t even know the final plan.
As for the bike lanes if you look at the plans more carefully you will see that some of the options do indeed implement lanes with just paint. Others call for a raised separator and of course that would cost more. We really don’t know yet.

Focus on the people…. Muni muni muni. We are the 99%. Don’t cater to the fascist elitist bicycle coalition. Us muni riders are the little people. We don’t have an elitist coalition. We are just plain normal folk who need public transport. Muni muni muni

I am calling a Godwin on this thread. Jill lost, the good guys won and we can all call it a day.

“Who lives elsewhere in the city or outside the city and drives to Polk Street to go shopping?”
More misinterpretation. It’s not that 54% of the people shopping live or work near Polk. It’s that for 54% of people on Polk the reason they were there was that they live or work nearby. Only 14% of people who answered the survey were there for shopping.
” Drivers spend the least on a monthly basis”
Drivers actually reported spending the most amount of money during the trip they were interviewed ( $35.72 ). Bikers reported spending the least, less than half of the amount reported by drivers ( $15.13 )
The weekly spending amounts in the survey were estimated by converting peoples verbal response to a question about how often they visited Polk to an arbitrary number of days per week ( A few times a month to .5 , A few times a week to 2, I live here to 7) then multiplying the arbitrary days per week by the “typical spending” the person reported.
Weak data to base a conclusion off of.

Jill fabricates numbers about how many people cycle, fabricates information about the demographics of cyclsits, and is for some reason quite concerned about the race of the fabricated demographics, disregards surveys because the conclusion doesn’t agree with her predetermined biases. She also ignores that much of these improvements are for non-cyclists.
Futurist immediately chimes in on the same deceptions and expresses how he likes Jill.
Well, at least futurist is consistent.
Jill, according to SFMTA in 2011 3.5% of trips were bicycle, not 0.01%. If you think your number is more accurate, feel free to provide supporting evidence. Improvements can be made that improve MUNI & cyclists.

@everybody talking about 510 million dollars and buses
That number is completely wrong, and it’s about a development project on the corner of 2001 Market St at Dolores St. (see name link for more info)
The actual number is $510,000 (five hundred and ten thousand dollars) and it’s intended to be used as money for street improvements at the site in lieu of development fees paid to the city. It has absolutely nothing to do with buses or Polk St. so can we put that to rest now?
Additional note to bike haters: It would be nice if at least once you would use some accurate numbers to support your arguments.

My apologies.
“Just how much investment is needed? For Muni and other aspects of our current transportation system, we need $510 million per year for the next 20 years. However, our budget only covers half of these needs. If we continue underfunding the transportation network like this, it will not only fall further into disrepair” (Ed Reiskin writing in SFWeeklly)
MeterMadness had posted this which caused my confusion. “If Muni needs $510 million a year, why did SFMTA just approve a trade of $510 million in developer transit fees for a $510 million dollar streetscape project? Who is setting the priorities? And how can anyone justify that kind of money for a single street corner? Where are the auditors?”
I am not sure if MeterMadness is writing about over 500 million in total streetscape projects, or if like me, they were confused and beginning to think any wasteful amount could be spent in San Francisco when it comes to the SFMTA.
MeterMadness had also provided this link:
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2008.0550U.pdf

Wow. There’s silly, and then there’s Jill.
If cyclists are elitist, then the limo crowd who double parks in OUR bike lanes probably didn’t get the memo 😉
And using the “99%” argument? Do you understand the irony of this nugget in a car-centric society? Probably not.
Now I totally get why Jack left you.

@Jill
So your basic approach is to stand by your fabricated numbers and continue to disregard professional studies because you don’t like the conclusions. Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
If the bike lanes can be disregarded because only 0.01% will use them (note: an entirely made up number), then the same can be said about the 170 parking spaces, which make up 0.04% of SF’s total parking spaces (note: a real number based on the MTA study from 2010 that counted 451,540 parking spaces in SF).
But I’m sure you’ll come up with another reason to discount the real numbers and continue to use your pretend numbers.

Nobody’s shouting you down, passeist. But you guys do not really make sense and have to resort to wild hyperboles to push your ideas around. Never a good sign.

You are welcome to your opinion, but expect it to be challenged when it’s based on fantasy.
If you are unwilling to provide real world evidence to support your opinion, or at least refute the contradicting evidence, don’t be surprised when you get classified with the type of folks believe that the world is flat, we never landed on the moon, or that evolution is fake.
Oh, and thanks for the reminder about the supervisors and mayor! I’ll be sure to let them know where I stand on this debate

@LCA
I counter with the 3rd st Promenade in Santa Monica, first closed to driving in the 60s, and today a nationally recognized shopping destination.
And of course conversation of closing streets is irrelevant to Polk, as well as cycling. Bikes don’t need the street the street to be closed to cars.
Closing Market for private autos is mainly to benefit MUNI, as bikes already have quite nice lanes on Market, while auto traffic often slows MUNI down to a crawl.

San Francisco has or is becoming hopelessly caught up in “fads” and “trends”. not surprising with our tech economy and workforce.
And I said before that urban biking is largely a new “trend”. why it didn’t come to fruition in the 60’s thru the 90’s is good question. Why is it a trend now?
Certainly the influence of those who have been to Amsterdam has had some impact. Funny how Americans love to copy Europe.
Interesting points about State St. in chicago, and how they reversed some of the implementations allowing retail to once again become successful there. We need to learn from this.
And yes, the Third St. Promenade in Santa Monica is a huge success. Been there many times and love it, but let’s be clear: it was NEVER a major, or important traffic route, and closing it to cars did not impact traffic at all. Let’s also be clear: Santa Monica built several very large parking garages just behind the major retail, and those garages are always well used and full. This is why it works. Many people DRIVE there, easily park and walk to the shopping areas.

Time will tell whether it’s a fad or not. But you’ve got it precisely backward. The cycling initiative is a result of city policy stemming from the ultra-liberal BOS system.

hipsters on fixies is a fad, urban cycling is a trend which has been growing not just in SF, but across the nation, and the industrialized world, for decades.
Polk is not a major traffic route either, and of course the whole street closure topic is pure strawman as nobody is suggesting that Polk should be closed to cars. Just the typical bike hater strategy of grabbing at every straw you can regardless of it’s relevance or basis in reality.
And just so we are clear, Santa Monica is part of southern california one of the most car oriented areas in the country. During the height of auto dominance they had the balls to close the streets to cars, and it was a huge success. The garages were built because of the success of the closure, given that the majority of them were built well after the street was closed to cars.
And even if it’s successful only because of the garages (which I’m in no way saying is true), it’s still a wildly successful street closure, which completely disproves your buddy LCA’s theory that street closures will destroy retail.
In your fantasy world one failed street closure decades ago means no bike lanes anywhere regardless of whether a street closure is even on the table.

How is this project going to hurt MUNI? Having less cars parking means less cars blocking MUNI.
Separating bike lanes means less conflicts between bikes and buses, meaning less slowdown for MUNI.
If you base your opinion on false numbers and broken logic you will come to invalid conclusions.

“How is this project going to hurt MUNI? Having less cars parking means less cars blocking MUNI.”
the money is being diverted to help the few elitist, instead of being invested in infrasture for the other 99%

Sure you’re not confusing a left turn lane for a travel lane? Do tell, since you’re there, how long do those six lanes continue for?

@r,
Sure you didn’t initially say “cc is 2 lanes now” and then revise it to “mission to bayshore” ? Cause you did.
But yes, there it is a block and one lane is to 101 the other turnin into bernal. It’s a little longer than a block on the eastbound side, so 3 lanes there.
Btw, I was just cracking a joke about the tripping thing. Sorry about that, I meant nothing by it except to say CC isn’t there yet(. Can’t wait for it to get there either.)

Behind the 3rd street promenade both east and west sides on EVERY single block is an identical series of 7 level parking garages. Do a google earth if you don’t believe me. 3 rd street is a success because of the inclusion of parking in the plan. And I mean a LOT of parking. The equivalent of 5 Sutter/Stockton garages.

@Jill
so now you are saying 99% of people ride muni, and the other 1% ride bikes? Or is it still 0.01% that ride bikes, meaning 0.99% drive or walk?
However you interpret your numbers they are laughable.
Not to mention that for the purpose of what you are ridiculously trying to argue it literally is the expense of painting some lines on the street. Which is all that a bike lane really is. Removing parking spaces certainly doesn’t require any money. Building bulb outs, bus stops and widening sidewalks does cost quite a bit of money, so even if your crazy numbers were real, the money is being spent on buses and pedestrian improvements.
Even if you go with the plans that physically separate the bike lanes the expense is minor compared to the other improvements being proposed.

If our public transit system were as superb as the Paris Metro, or the London Tube, or the NY subway, I would not be driving my little German Suv as much.
Oh, I wouldn’t give it up, but I would be using Muni much more.
Spend a LOT more money on Muni: make it dependable, safe, clean and efficient. Spend less money (but some) on bike infrastructure.

futurist, we are already spending LESS money on bikes than Muni. We always have. Yet another case of the “I’ll make up facts that fit my case and run with them.”
You can remove all funding for bike infrastructure and it will not fix Muni
But if we fail to spend just the current token amount that we spend today, we’ll have a lot more Muni riders to take care of in the future.
Bangs for the bucks…
And thanks for letting us know you’re driving a Trabant.

The reason why voters created the umbrella SFMTA agency was to FIX Muni, not punish drivers and reallocate funds to bike paths .

@NoeValleyJim, since you are a car owner and user yourself, it is interesting that you propose these changes, especially since they are not near your neighborhood.
Question for you…How would the stores be able to receive deliveries? What about fire trucks and ambulances?
You yourself admitted you NEEDED a car to get around the city, so stop punishing people in another neighborhood you rarely visit to satisfy some feel good political theory.
Why don’t YOU put the bike path on 24th instead and ban all the cars there and leave Polk Gulch alone.

I agree with you Jill, that public transit should take priority over all other users of the streets, excepting pedestrians who are sort of a special class in need of extra protection because of their exceptional vulnerability.
anon, get an alias if you want to have a discussion with me. It it too hard to figure out which anon is which.

zero is the right amount to spend on bike infrastructure. The money should ALL go to improving muni. Why divert money to cater to a handful of people when the 99% are taking muni?
Bikes already have equal right to the road as cars, so the infrastructure is there. It’s called a road. If you are not feeling safe, then take muni and ride your bike in golden gate park on the weekend.

Something about this discussion puzzled me so I read it again a few times and I realized that there are actually two futurists! There is good futurist, who is, at least outwardly, able to appear reasonable, able to argue logically and able to participate in a reasoned debate. Then there is bad futurist, who is histrionic, either does not know or more likely does not care what logical reasoning looks like, argues on the basis of emotions instead of facts and makes things up to support his case.
Can you two start labeling yourselves gfuturist and bfuturist or at least A and B so I can keep you straight? That would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

@brianSF – The SFMTA is run by a seven member board appointed by the mayor, not “experts on urban planning and traffic safety”.
The SFMTA was constituted by a decision of the voters with the purpose of achieving two results:
1.) Erase the MUNI deficit
2.) Fix Muni
Presently there is NO plan to Fix Muni and NO plan to fix the deficit.
The “well considered plans” that the SFMTA is trying to NOW put in place throughout the city are caused by a couple of board members who are not interested in fixing MUNI or reducing the deficit but are active members of the San Francisco Bike Coalition. These members have voted millions of dollars in funding the Bike Coalition to act as “consultants” in assisting to create a new ‘bike plan” for the city. I am still waiting for them to explain why funds are better spent on the Central Subway, instead of fixing MUNI. The Central Subway is a perfect example of what happens when a political group makes transit planning decisions instead of “experts”. “Transit Experts” would be building a Geary or Van Ness subway instead, only AFTER fixing Muni and erasing the deficit.
The financial punishment of drivers in the city, and then not using those funds to fix Muni are the cause of citizen outrage. The deficit is worse than ever. Voters have every right to express unhappiness to elected/appointed officials that they pay the salaries for as well as the interest on the deficits these elected officials have created.

“let SFMTA execute their well considered vision of a safer (for bikes AND pedestrians)”
Bus travel (i.e. Muni) is the safest option and biking the least safe.
Many studies have shown that biking is *more* dangerous than driving.
“. Fatal injury rates were highest for motorcyclists, pedestrians, and bicyclists….Nonfatal injury rates were highest for motorcyclists and bicyclists”
And not only in America, but in more bike friendly european countries as well.
“Elvik and Vaa were able to compare injury risks by mode of travel in six European countries. They calculated injury rates per kilometer traveled and found that, relative to car occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists were at increased risk and bus occupants were at decreased risk.”
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/2/212.full
And this underestimates the risk because you need more trips (i.e. miles traveled) to accomplish the same errands on a bike. From the SFMTA study, bycylists needed 2.4 trips to accomplish what drivers did in one ( $35/trip vs $15/trip)

“Many studies have shown that biking is *more* dangerous than driving.”
Those would be the studies emphasizing at the effects of danger rather than the cause. The sort of study that will conclude that you’re safest in a vehicle that approximates an armored personnel carrier.

I cycle north on VN pretty often to connect to Polk Street, because there’s no better alternative. Franklin is a freeway with a steep hill, Larkin is roughly the same but then you have the Walking Dead randomly crossing and making things unpredictable from Golden Gate to O’Farrell
Van Ness is a pretty scary ride for the unexperienced. I always ride on the road, but I understand why a rider would prefer to be on a sidewalk. I hug the parked cars and am on the lookout for dooring while climbing a fairly decent hill. It’s not for the faint of heart.
Of course on the sidewalk they should absolutely WALK their bikes. It takes 3-4 minutes walking from McAllister to Ellis where you will safely connect to Polk, but somehow some cyclists consider walking a bike as a sign of defeat…

“Larkin is roughly the same but then you have the Walking Dead randomly crossing and making things unpredictable from Golden Gate to O’Farrell”
I see no problem with Larkin. the hills are minor and it is less commercial. Agree with Van Ness and Franklin not being viable.
The walking dead shouldnt cause too much of an issue on a bike. They are dangerous for cars, but bikes travel slower and can stop much faster

@FixMuniFirst
Posting a bunch of conspiracy theories and putting quotes around nearly every other word doesn’t make a strong argument.
I’m not clear on how any of your post is relevant to Polk St.

The quotes were taken from previous post by @brianSF as the email states at the beginning that it is a response to @brianSF.
I was correcting the mistaken belief that the SFMTA Board was staffed by qualified transit planners when it is in fact filled by political appointments from the Mayor. No conspiracy, just stating how the Board is organized.

spencer,
The walking dead shouldnt cause too much of an issue on a bike. They are dangerous for cars, but bikes travel slower and can stop much faster
My issue is more the unpredictability of cars due to the drunk/high/undead just crossing randomly.
If you’re next to a car that has to do a split-second move, the driver will swerve into you without looking. It’s also very indirect: a car pushes another one into another lane and so on… You need nerves of steel on Larkin.

liquid, i have addressed this several times. THis plan hurts muni because money is diverted to help a handful of people (cycling commuters) at the expense of saving the Money for large muni projects, which help a lot more people. if Muni were near perfect and the city was flush with funds, i would be all for this.

@Jill
If the bike lane speeds up muni then it helps muni, so you need to show how the bike lane hurts muni.
Or you can demonstrate how spending the bike lane money on another project benefits muni more, but given that you don’t have the slightest clue as to how much money is being spent on the lanes, I don’t see you coming up with that any time soon.

Liquid. No sense arguing with a brick wall. It’s very clear that if muni is priority then the money should be spent to help muni. I am not a city planner so don’t know which muni project to spend it on. There are a lot of upgrades needed. And I don’t know how much this bike lane boondoggle costs. But even if it is $5, that’s $5 that could go to muni. Even cleaning a bus is of greater good than this bike lane for a special interest group. City policy is being driven by special interests like the bike coalition and it is cronyism. Support the 99% and support muni projects. The elitist cycling 1% should not dictate policy

I’m a woman

I keep saying, we need a more balanced approach and at this point I don’t see that happening.
You keep saying that, but also keep ignoring the fact that a “more balanced” approach would actually give MORE money and voice to cyclists, not less, since they’re actually one of the only modes that is dramatically increasing share (at the expense of driving and transit riding – walking is also increasing at the expense of those two).
“More balanced” in your mind seems to be equivalent to “the way I like things”.

The discussion is safety on Polk St., not what is the safest mode of transportation out of pesdestrians, busses, cars and bikes.
You left out 2 modes more dangerous than cycling. I guarantee you that motorcycles, taxis, limos, and probably the occasional RV, can be found on Polk.
“This is exactly what you’d expect because behavior influences your accident risk in most modes. A bus passenger is obviously not the at fault party and you do see equal fatalities for males and females in that mode. Motorcycles are so risky that there is a significant selection bias in people who chose that mode.”
This is flawed logic. The ratio of fatalities does not assign fault. You could use the same logic to imply that busses (given the low rate of overall deaths) are almost never at fault, while motorcycles (given the high rate) are almost always at fault. The fault has nothing to do with the rate of death, it only speaks to the level of risk.
Males also make up a larger percentage of the cycling population, by about 1.5-3 times depending on source, whereas the driving population is almost exactly equal between males and females. So the ratios are basically the same.
You also ignore the fact that the pedestrian gender ratio is also quite large (about 3:1 male to female), even though the populations are almost equal.
All the ratio tells us is that males are more likely to be killed doing things unless they are ridiculously safe, or ridiculously dangerous. It certainly says nothing about whether cyclists are more often at fault.
Rather than trying to infer something from data that has very little relevance, you could review some of the studies that have actually gone over police reports. I would also advise more than just a single study.
But as I already mentioned, cause is a much more important factor, and much easier to determine.
I included information from 3 different studies. I linked to one study, which as I mentioned was a meta study (meaning a collection of other studies), which included peer reviewed studies. The point of referring to multiple studies is that different studies come up with different findings.
More importantly though, I still ask what is the point of your post? What does it matter to the Polk St. safety discussion even if you are right and bikes are less safe?

City policy is being driven by special interests like the bike coalition. this is the old boy network of cronyism.
reminds me of those conniving southern politicians in the 60s

“I also understand that there is much work to do to achieve our charter-mandated performance goals. We are working hard to address the system’s critical issues: increasing efficiencies, replacing antiquated equipment, and ensuring buses and trains are on time. These issues result, in part, from underfunding Muni for decades…
Just how much investment is needed? For Muni and other aspects of our current transportation system, we need $510 million per year for the next 20 years” (Edward Reisikin – SFMTA)
Reisikin now gets what Jill is writing about. The backlash being felt by the SFMTA is not anti-bike, it is PRO MUNI, and people want Muni fixed.
As mentioned earlier, after we get MUNI fixed, we can allow the SFMTA to worry about Parklets, Parkmobiles, Bike paths, bulb outs, etc.

Sorry futurist, but it’s too much fun demolishing your posts. Your stuck with me.
And don’t worry jill, we’re equal opportunity here. It’s not your gender that gets you so little respect, it’s your inability to support your claims with any data or facts.

Cycling in SF is dominated by young men because it is obviously dangerous and sometimes confrontational. If you want to fix cycling’s gender balance, all you have to do is make it safer.

How would people like it if the San Francisco Auto Dealers Association were to get tax money to promote car usage, and then stack the SFMTA Board with it’s members who then turn around and vote to fund the S.F. Auto Dealers staff positions, office space and junkets and lobbying to come up with more car usage strategies and ways to punish bike riders?
A little research will explain what Jill is writing about. There is a financial revolving door between the Bike Coalition and the SFMTA with members getting high salary jobs in the SFMTA and then proposing to fund various bike coalition research projects and events. It is all about the money. Do you think Bike to Work day is free? That “idea” gives the SFBC $50,000 in one day alone (for what?) District 5 Diary, MeterMadness and ENUF have even posted a speech given at by a SFBC member about how they were able to “rig the system” to obtain city and federal funds to then lobby their agenda and pay their own salaries.
Those 6 month long bike trips around France and other parts of Europe do not come cheap! Go on their site to see pictures of them toasting their good fortune in the Netherlands, Heidelberg, France etc. as they take bike trips to “study” how to make San Francisco “better”. I am furious that someone from Central Florida can move to San Francisco and in 12 years time feel they know what is best for the city and take my tax money to then promote their own ideas, AND vacations!

Indeed. That was an epic and misguided rant. Someone needs to open a history book or something.
For instance, streetcars were EVERYWHERE in San Francisco. There were 10 times more lines, criss-crossing the city. They were torn down to make way for cars. It was pushed down our throat by the car and oil lobby, and it happened in most American cities.
San Francisco kept a skeleton network, but it is only a shadow of its former self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
“Several of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce”
By that time of course all the dmage was done. Cars are now part of our DNA.

That a lot of text. But that’s also a big strawman. And the reason is that you choose to look at the problem from a very narrow standpoint.
The biggest killer in the country is heart disease. One of the major contributing factors is lack of exercise, caused in part by the generalized use of motorized individual transportation.
Getting out of your car to commute by bike reduces your risk of heart disease, far outweighing the risk of fatality due to an accident.
Following that logic, we should ban cars because promoting an unhealthy transit mode does not increase public health.

So bicycling exposes people to 13X harm? That seems way way off. Probably partially because of the assumption that cyclists take 2.4 more trips. I don’t feel at all as if I’m taking any more trips on a bike compared to driving. It seems to be a 1-1 tradeoff except for cases of extra large loads. I do most of my shopping on the way to and from work so it is possible that I’m even taking less trips on a bike since there’s no need to get off of the freeway and back on.
Once when I needed to dispose of 1.5 tons of concrete fragments I entertained the thought (though not seriously) of hauling on a bike. That would have required several days of continuous effort but legs of steel would be the reward. Instead I overloaded my SUV and made three trips to the dump. See, cars are superior to bikes in some situations.
So for all of those analyses of cycling risk, did the studies conclude the cause of the danger?

@Watcher, most of what you wrote was either misinterpreting, or misunderstanding what I said. Re-read what I posted earlier.
I will respond to one point:
“Mode shifting people into a 13x less safe transit mode does not increase public safety.”
I consider your assessment wrong for the reasons already pointed out above by myself and others.
But even assuming it is correct mode shifting can and does increase safety, as cars are the cause of the lack of safety in cycling or being a pedestrian. Cars cause the deaths.
Reduce the number of cars, or slow them down, and the other modes become vastly safer. It even becomes safer for cars!

“So for all of those analyses of cycling risk, did the studies conclude the cause of the danger?”
Well, if people can just make things up (“Cars cause the deaths.”) then I may as well quote Wikipedia.
A study conducted in 2000 by the Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands found that single bicycle accidents accounted for 47% of all bicycle accidents, collisions with obstacles and animals accounted for 12%, and collisions with other road users accounted for 40%, with the remaining 1% having unknown or unclassified cause.

The diminished IQ of the majority of hipsters probably make the solo bike accident rate worse in SF

“Well, if people can just make things up (“Cars cause the deaths.”) then I may as well quote Wikipedia.”
It should be pretty obvious that heavy, powerful, high speed vehicles are responsible for the majority of the mayhem on roads. For example fatal accidents are common on US interstate highways where no bikes or pedestrians are allowed. On the other hand it is very rare for a collision to result in a fatality on recreational trails where cars are not allowed. One place has only motorized vehicles, the other has none.
Your breakdown of bike crashes neglects to consider severity of those single-bike crashes. The harm presented by a travel mode is the product of frequency times severity. Cyclists and pedestrians cause significantly less severe collisions compared to cars.

“Your conclusions are invalid because they are based on invalid understandings of the meaning of the numbers, and how the they interact.”
I would say the same about both sides of this argument. These studies are not well controlled in general. As a statistician, I find it wildly amusing to see everyone takes terrible run studies and make definitive conclusions about any of them. I could design a study and produce statistically valid results on either side of this equation. Everyone is biased . All the studies should just be taken with a grain of salt. Real statisticians and cientists are not busy finding out if cycling is safer that driving. They are working on something much more important. Anything from a special interest group (aka oil lobby, bicycle coalition, GM) should be taken with 10 pounds of salt

“Well, if people can just make things up (“Cars cause the deaths.”) then I may as well quote Wikipedia.”
Nothing made up there. According to the CDC cars are the number 1 cause of injury death.
I’ve already explained how cars cause the death, regardless of fault. The CDC and many studies agree.
I’ll reiterate: fault and cause are different. In an impact between a cyclists (or pedestrian) and driver the fault can be either party, while the cause is almost always the car.

Watcher’s strawman “bikes do not provide a healthier alternative to driving”
The debate started with me quoting a link to several studies that showed that the health benefits of a cyclist was multiples of the risk to the same cyclist. The ration was 13:1 and higher.
The response was:
Total years of life lost for heart disease is about 5x traffic crashes. Even zeroing out all heart disease, which biking does not do, would not be worth a 5.5x increase in traffic fatalities. If biking cures cancer and heart disease, thats equaled at around 11x traffic fatalities.
Only very few of all traffic fatalities are from cyclists. You’re confusing many different things here. But that’s the goal I guess.
1 – Bikes cannot replace cars for long trips. The number of miles covered by a cyclist are much less than a driver. Plus someone who chose to be a cyclist for commuting could choose to drive or fly or ride a train for longer trips. His cycling activity would not multiply his personal chances of dying in a traffic accident by the number you are giving which is very debatable. But his physical activity will improve his cardio-vascular health. The studies I quoted give roughly a 50% reduction in mortality from heart disease.
You might question the numbers because they do not fit your view, but they are what they are.

“It should be pretty obvious that heavy, powerful, high speed vehicles are responsible for the majority of the mayhem on roads.”
“No study needed, just common sense.”
Many people think that terrorism or school shootings are significant dangers because they are scary and get news coverage. Large freeway crashes get news coverage as well, but you need to consider that the large transit capacity of freeways means that many many people use them for every crash you see on the news.
I know more drivers than cyclists and know of no-one with a serious injury (requiring hospitalization) due to a single car accident while sober. A good handful of people I know have landed in the hospital due to single vehicle bike accidents. And,if anything, accidents on the trail were worse than those on the road. (I mountain bike, but have no illusions as to its safety). Nearly everyone I know who has taken up motorcycle riding long term ends up in a serious accident. My common sense fits right in with the data.
The reality is that the human body is fragile and you’re safer in a giant metal cage with airbags and antilock brakes (eventually to be radar assisted antilock brakes) because all these things protect you from impact trauma. Nothing personal to you cyclists.
“These studies are not well controlled in general. As a statistician, I find it wildly amusing to see everyone takes terrible run studies and make definitive conclusions about any of them.”
Grated, but firstly the burden of proof should be on the small minority wanting to make a change to the transit system.
Secondly, pulling a bait and switch between traffic fatalities and all-factor fatalities is the source of friction here.
Are there any peer reviewed studies that show lower accident risks per mile for bicycling vs passenger vehicles?

” and many other studies disagree.”
With so many studies disagreeing it should be easy for you to find a study showing that bike riding has a lower fatality per mile than a passenger vehicle.
“Only very few of all traffic fatalities are from cyclists.”
Because very few people cycle.
All-factor fatality is moot because it’s easy enough to pick a safer mode of transit and exercise separately.

@Watcher
Cars cause about 35,000 to 40,000 deaths, and millions of injuries, a year, this is from the CDC.
“you’re safer in a giant metal cage with airbags and antilock brakes… these things protect you from impact trauma”
Yes, the impact trauma, caused most of the time, by a car. Either the driver runs into something, or is run into by another car in the vast majority of cases. It’s not like trees and houses are running into sitting cars.
Cars are heavy, and move fast. Things that are heavy and move fast have a lot of kinetic energy. Things with a lot of kinetic energy cause lots of damage. Thus, cars cause lots of damage when they hit other objects. When those objects happen to be pedestrians, cyclists, or even other cars, this damage is often fatal.
Even your own study shows that cars are involved in the the vast majority of fatalities and injuries.

but firstly the burden of proof should be on the small minority wanting to make a change to the transit system.
It’s already well studied that cars cause deaths, to pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users.
So making safety improvements is not just for cyclists.
“Only very few of all traffic fatalities are from cyclists.”
Because very few people cycle.
Denmark had about 200 traffic fatalities total in 2011. Netherlands had around 650, which is about the same per capita. Adjusted for population, that’s the equivalent of about 11,000 deaths in the US. Less than a third of our current rate.
So in countries where very many people bicycle, there are much fewer overall deaths, and cars still account for the majority of deaths. When you look at the history of deaths in those and similar countries, deaths are going up until they start protecting the vulnerable road users, and start going down dramatically after they start protecting. And the safety improvements impact all road users.
So as I’ve consistently said, even if cycling (and being a pedestrian) is more dangerous, it’s irrelevant because cars are the cause.
Safety improvements should be targeted at the cause, especially given that it has been proven effective many times in many countries.

“Behavior changes once a certain number of cyclists are on the road”
And yet even in the Netherlands. From a study picked by lyqwyd
“Studies investigating the comparative risk of injury for cyclists versus car occupants find significantly higher risks per unit
of exposure for cyclists: e.g. 7.5 times higher injury risks in Norway (Elvik, 2009) and 5.5 times higher fatality risk for the Netherlands (CBS, 2008)”
“Safety improvements should be targeted at the cause, especially given that it has been proven effective many times in many countries.”
Money should be spent either on moving people to a known safer form of transit (Muni). Or improving the most common heavily used mode of transit ( i.e.auto safety), a strategy which has been enormously effective (DUI awareness/enforcement, air bags, antilock brakes,..) and with upcoming vehicle automation technology will be even more effective in the future.

“improving the most common heavily used mode of transit”
That approach is already the standard in the U.S. Safety has improved far more in countries that focused on protecting the vulnerable from the cause of harm, than it has here in the U.S. where we already follow the approach you recommend. The approach of improving safety in cars, while showing some success, has failed when compared to the approach of reducing harm caused by cars, which has shown far more success.
It’s obvious you prefer the status quo, but the status quo leaves us living in a country where traffic fatalities are 2-3 times what you find in countries that follow the approach I advocate.,

the elitist at the San Francisco bicycle coalition
Jill never fails to disappoint.

“I also find it interesting that Watcher tries to use Norway and the Netherlands as examples to support his arguments, ”
I used the Netherlands quote because it’s from a paper *you* cited so it’s clear I’m not cherry picking studies.
( http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/12Cycle-Safety.pdf )
And *you* cite the Netherlands as an example of a bike friendly country.
And *you* called out that risk per exposure (time or trips) is the more useful number.
“Injuries by time traveled, or trips taken are much more useful, which show cycling to be about at safe, or safer than driving.”
*you* didn’t like the number that *you* called out from a paper *you* cited “and 5.5 times higher fatality risk for the Netherlands (CBS, 2008)”” so you tried to re-focus on all-factor mortality and now per-capita deaths.
Furthermore, the (CBS 2008) citation isn’t specific enough to track down an exact paper. But looking at the CBS (Netherlands Statistical Agency) 2008 article page they have a small report on transit fatalities and even the per-capita fatality data contradicts your speculations.
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/verkeer-vervoer/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-030-pb.htm
What is the “protection of vulnerable road users doing?
“More road deaths aged between 20 and 30, increase among cyclists”
All age Change in deaths 2002-2007
Cars -37%
Bikes -3.1%
Walk -15.7%
Is this because there are more people cycling?
No. From the “Commuter cyclists prefer short distances” article on the same page
“Cycling to work has not become more popular in recent years. ”
Not definitive but consistent with the common sense notion that auto safety can and is progressing much faster than bike safety.

“it’s because less people are driving”
No. From the same CBS 2008 page.
“More kilometres travelled by car. The distance travelled by car has continually increased.”
More driving. 37% fewer car fatalities. 26% fewer all mode.

One more thing:
“Not definitive but consistent with the common sense notion that auto safety can and is progressing much faster than bike safety.”
Auto safety has many meanings, and many approaches. The differences is that here in the USA we focus on auto safety from a technical standpoint trying to improve safety for those inside cars. Things like airbags, seat belts, anti-lock breaks, etc., which are great.
But in the safest countries they focus on overall safety, meaning they ensure that autos are safe for those inside the vehicle all those around them, including. The strategies they use are slowing cars down, separating cars from vulnerable users as much as possible, and shifting mode away from cars, since cars are almost always the cause of the danger for all. If you take a person out of a car and put them on a bus, train, foot, or bicycle, it increases safety for all.
The second approach is proven more successful, and therefore should be the focus, but nobody here is saying we should forego the first approach. On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious value of the second approach, and say we should only pursue the less effective technical, car passenger focused, approach.

Watcher
1) Kilometers traveled is not the same as the number of people traveling.
2) Where did you get the quote:
“More kilometres travelled by car. The distance travelled by car has continually increased.”
I don’t see it on the page you linked to:
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/verkeer-vervoer/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-030-pb.htm
nor on the associated PDF on that page, in fact I can’t even find the word kilometre in either.
4) It was a hypothetical, I do not know that it’s because of less drivers, just like you don’t know it’s not because of more cyclists (not that I think it is due to that).
Of course invalidating a hypothetical doesn’t change anything. The point is that just copying and pasting a number does not prove anything.
So what if safety increased more for cars? Overall safety increased for all, which has consistently been my point.
Again you focus on a number without looking at the overall importance of it, or even seeming to have a point by presenting it at all.

I just went to the link you provided, no such statements found there.
But it’s not important, because the statements themselves are not important.
You can continue to quibble over the details, it doesn’t change the conclusions.
Still waiting to hear your point.

Here’s some food for thought relevant to the claim that protected bike lanes on Polk St. will have a negative effect on retail. New NYC study demonstrates the opposite: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/americabikes/pages/211/attachments/original/1351785187/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf?1351785187
Now obviously this isn’t apples to apples but it does demonstrate that you can swap out auto capacity for bike capacity while increasing retail revenue.

Nice MoD! More data supporting the basic premise, which is also relevant to the type of improvements they are suggesting on Polk St, and also helps to refute the unsupported claims of the merchants claiming these changes will hurt them.

all of this fighting over cars vs. bikes is a waste. the real question is
“should we be diverting money from Muni improvements to pay for bicycle infrastructure for the few people who commute on bikes.”
I think the answer is clearly no. Everything else is just a distraction.

I would add that per Jill’s deeply flawed logic, we should give up all research on alternative energy, because people overwhelmingly use fossil fuel. A few extreme republicans and oil lobbyist are actually saying that, but they’re their own brand of short-sighted simpletons.

“1) Nobody is talking about shifting all drivers from cars to bikes”
Going partway in the wrong direction is still going in the wrong direction.
“2) You keep ignoring that buses are far safer than cars”
No. I’m all for Fixing Muni. Jill suggested that and all the bikers went after her.
4&5) You’ve repeatedly stated things as facts without any proof. I debunked all your speculations and you respond with. “Sure thats the proof, whats the point?” I show you the point and you say “Sure that’s the point, where’s the proof?”
You’re running in circles now.
“There is strong evidence all over the world, that is now decades old showing that:”
No. Read the above posts.
“Another strawman, nobody is suggesting that.”
No. It’s a hypothetical. Nobody is suggesting that because it’s a bad idea. A hypothetical that shows how making a small safety improvement in one mode isn’t always a good idea.

“Going partway in the wrong direction…”
That statement has no relevance to the quote above it, and you’ve entirely failed to show that protecting vulnerable users (pedestrians and cyclists) is the wrong direction.
“I’m all for Fixing Muni”
Interesting, you’ve said almost nothing about muni, and repeatedly ignore that the Polk improvements will also benefit muni.
jill made up a bunch of garbage numbers that were quickly shown to be incorrect. I don’t know about the others, but I’m a driver, not a biker.
It’s a fact that Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have dramatically lower traffic fatalities per capita than the US.
It’s a fact that the countries with the highest bike mode share tend to have the lowest fatalities per capita.
It’s a fact that the countries that focus on protecting the vulnerable users also have the lowest fatalities per capita.
I, and others, have already shown that cars are the cause of the vast majorities of the deaths and injuries. This is supported by basic physics, and the reports of national health organizations all over the world.
Reducing driving and protecting vulnerable users has been very effective in reducing deaths and injuries for road users all over the world, for decades. This is supported by the data that has been provided.
Where have you debunked that? Nowhere. You have focused on a few leaves, and ignored the forest of data.
“No. It’s a hypothetical. Nobody is suggesting that because it’s a bad idea.”
That’s exactly what a straw man is, picking a hypothetical that is in no way realistic, and nobody is suggesting, and treating as if it’s relevant, and has an impact on the topic at hand.
From wikipedia:
To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Forcing everybody to travel by nuclear rocket is also a bad idea, and as relevant as your hypothetical. Basing any conclusion on that would also be a straw man.
Your entire point is a straw man as nobody is suggesting making all drivers start riding bikes.

“Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling.”
I wouldn’t dispute that cycling may be riskier compared to driving to the traveler simply because cyclists are more vulnerable. But driving definitely brings more danger to the street.
I think that the difference of opinion here is due to whether you’re focused solely on the traveler or on the safety of everyone on the street as an aggregate.
If you’re only looking out for Numero Uno then it is easy to draw the conclusion that being inside the biggest, heaviest steel box will protect your own personal hide. But if you look at the problem holistically then it is clear that favoring just about any mode other than driving will improve overall safety.
The dilemma here is that maximally protecting yourself means increasing danger to other people. It is a personal decision whether to become part of the problem or part of the solution. Government entities should be on the side of the solution.

Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling.
Find me one study that shows that people substitute one mile of driving for one mile of cycling.
When I started riding my bike to work, the first thing that I did was move closer to work. So 30 miles of roundtrip driving turned into 5 miles of roundtrip cycling. The reason I picked the neighborhood that I moved to? Good cycling infrastructure.
@anonandon – lucky you. If we’re tossing about personal anecdotes – I’ve never been injured on a bike, but I’ve had a broken arm and separated shoulder skiing, a broken leg skiing (different time), and 14 stitches from being a passenger in a car accident. Not sure what that proves though, other than I should stop skiing now! 🙂

If anything, anonandon’s accident should push him to ask for better cycling conditions.
The cause of his accident is probably not so much cycling in itself or the cyclist but the pothole. The same logic can be applied for separating bicycles from cars, and the actual debate of this thread (at least until Watcher transformed it into a virtual reality wetdream).

Yes, with ease. And yournotion that cycling’s increase in popularity has to do with mass enlightenment and not with calculated city policy is amusing to say the least.

Stay away from my lane, lazy boy.

There are more of us than cyclists and we are just as exposed.
I don’t know about numbers, but you obviously wouldn’t take Polk Street to go North or South. VN gough or Franklin would work for you just fine.

“You’re clearly bonking at this point.”
logical fallacy: ad hominem
“Yelling about “facts” and “all over the world” doesn’t make something true.”
I’ve not yelled, I’ve merely presented the data.
Fact: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, USA are countries all over the world.
Fact: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway have lower traffic fatality rates than the USA.
Fact: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway have higher cycling mode share.
Fact: Their safety improvements have been going on for decades.
I pointed these out above. You putting quotes around the word fact does not invalidate them as facts. I can also add more countries if you would like.
Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling.”
Another straw man. I don’t need to provide a study showing lower risk per mile of cycling because:
1) A single study, peer reviewed or not, proves nothing
2) It’s not my claim that more miles of cycling lowers risk.
My claim, as I’ve repeated over and over, is that focusing safety on protecting vulnerable users (pedestrians and cyclists) increases safety. There has been ample data provided to support this.
What you seem to be unable to understand is that the places that do focus on protecting vulnerable users wind up with increased cycling. The increase cycling is not the cause of the safety, it is a result of the increased safety.
Some of the measures that result in overall increased safety are cycling focused, such as separated bike lanes, others are not, such as bulb-outs, traffic circles, bus lanes, parking changes, etc.

^Most motorcycles are loud and obnoxious. Don’t want them near my open windows. Mopeds and scooters and other quiet motorized two wheel vehicles are fine.

“I still don’t get why cycling would get some sort of special benefits over motorcycling”
All modes, including motorcycles, get special treatment in certain cases. It’s because there are differences in their needs, and operation.
Motorcycles get to drive in the carpool lane with only one passenger, split lanes, and do many other things. Bikes get bike lanes, but don’t get to go on the freeway. Pedestrians get sidewalks. Airplanes and helicopters get airports and the sky. Trains get traintracks.
Every mode gets some sort of special treatment, basically because every mode has a certain amount of difference.
And I thought your whole thing about motorcycles was that you guys don’t whine… sounds like some whining going on right now.

First, prove that. Then dispute that SF had an agenda. I doubt you can do either.
Census data doesn’t lie. If you can’t use Google, that’s not my fault.
And I never said that SF didn’t have an agenda. You, however, stated that the rise in cycling is entirely because of this agenda, which is patently absurd when you look at nationwide trends.

You say “conspiracy,” I said “calculated agenda.” Which it was, tacitly delineated in readable terms .. A legacy of Mirkarimi, et al, policy intended to increase SF cycling, and a successful one at that … But you bikey types change the words around of people youre talking to so you can laugh your little laughs. Verbal equivalent of flipping the bird while running the stop sign. Of course! So enlightened, your movement.

Heh. The population of the United States is up 50 percent since 1979. Stop abusing data, bikey wiki.

Since I have no trouble finding that whole quote even without a link to the exact page, let’s take a look:
“These surveys indicate that the total number of bike trips in the USA more than tripled between 1977 and 2009, while the bike share of total trips almost doubled, rising from 0.6% to 1.0%. The U.S. Census Bureau also surveys travel but only for the trip to work. It reports a roughly constant level of daily bike commuters over the period 1980 to 2000 and a slight fall in the bike share of work commuters from 0.5% to 0.4%. There appears to have been a turnaround since 2000, however, as the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey reports almost twice as many daily bike commuters in 2009 as in 2000 and an increase in bike mode share to 0.6%”
“Census data doesn’t lie.”
Census data says in 29 years bicycle commuter mode share increased by 0.1%. From 0.5% to 0.6%

Census data lie all the time. It is constantly being corrected. And there are definitely more motorcycle commuters than cycling commuters . No one feels threatened by the cyclists. It’s about the least threatening group of wussies. The comments here are about why additional infrastructure is being built for the loud and politicall influential cycling lobby

@Watcher, you missed part, from 2000 to 2009 it went from 0.4 to 0.6, 50% increase in the most recent 9 years.
Lies asked for data supporting anon’s statement. I supplied it. Nothing you’ve commented has disproven that.
From 1977 to 2009 biking doubled or tripled, depending the metric. It doesn’t matter if during certain sub-periods the trend slowed or reversed, becuase the overall trend continues today, and even appears to be accelerating.
As per the usual, you focus on irrelevant minutia, while missing the big picture.

So Moto, it shounds like you think your group should get even more preference than it already gets, and that only those who threaten others should get attention.
You remind me of a certain South Park episode… in the words of Cartman:
“Nobody is intimidated, actually. Everybody realizes that people who are so needy for attention, that need to dress and be as loud as possible, are you guys and 16 year old girls.”
Not all motorcyclists are like that, but way too many are.

Oh, people were cycling sure. but they specifically set out to get more people cycling via infrastructure change, and accomplished that. Not vice versa.

I think all Moto was pointing out was that if motorcyclists could take advantage of SFMTA funds for political lobbying the way the bike coalition has they would have a stronger case since they are a larger percentage. The Bike Coalition got $50000 to promote Bike To Work day from our taxes, as well as $300000.00 to “study” and promote biking within the city . Add the various members who have been hired by the SFMTA, or are on both payrolls and we have a strangely powerful organization considering only 3.5% of the trips within the city are on bikes.

Fedup Thanks for summarizing my point. You made it much better.
Too many tax payer dollars are going to cycling

@FedUp
1) Nobody’s stopping motorcyclists from creating their own advocacy group.
2) Motorcycling is already subsidized along with driving (not as much as driving, but still subsidized)
3) SFMTA’s operating budget for 2013 is about $820 million. To reach 3.5% cyclists should have about $29 million spent solely for their benefit. And note that the operating budget is only a fraction of it’s total budget, things like the central subway don’t fall under the operating budget.
4) Given that the last number you presented was wildly inaccurate, I’ll need to see references supporting your $50K & $300K numbers.

The moto guy threw a bunch of straws into the debate and the denouncers of the Great Bicycle Conspiracy (TM) were very quick at grasping at them.
If bikers want more rights, they can organize and lobby for them. Take a number and start your own thread.

lyqwyd’s numbers have to be compared with the fact that cyclists in SF are roughly 20% of Muni’s ridership numbers.

^Um, you’re assuming that the 20% of Muni riders that are cyclists accounts for 100% of the 3.5%
Where are you possibly getting that idea from?

“^Um, you’re assuming that the 20% of Muni riders that are cyclists accounts for 100% of the 3.5%
Where are you possibly getting that idea from?”
Well, public transit mode share is 34%. 20% of that could cover most of the cyclists. Of course who knows where lol got the 20% number. Even the SFMTA mode survey was just a phone survey of 520 people with a +/- 4.3% confidence interval.
So don’t hold too tightly onto the 3.5% number in the face of a +/- 4.3% margin of error.

Watcher,
nobody said that 20% of muni riders are cyclists. So your whole theory can be thrown out as it is based on your mistaken interpretation.

3.5% (bike) is 20% of 17% (transit) mode share from MoD’s earlier document:
http://sfmta.com/cms/rbikes/documents/1-29-13BikeStrategy.pdf
lol was saying bike mode share is 20% as big as transit mode share per the doc provided.
Of course your theory is invalid for all the other reasons already provided, but given that it’s based on a mistake, it’s doubly invalidated.
“Whatever lol meant, bicyclists do use shared infrastructure.”
So what?
Cars, motorcycles, buses, pedestrians all use shared infrastructure. It’s no reason to deny cyclists fair funding based on their share of utilization. Nor is it a reason to say they shouldn’t get dedicated infrastructure. Cars get freeways, buses get bus lanes, pedestrians get sidewalks, even though they also use shared infrastructure.

Watcher’s misreading of the day:
By your own numbers 20% of this money serves cyclists even though they are only 3.5% of transit usage.
Watcher,
Wow. Freaking. Wow.
And I thought you were a serious debater. You’re simply a more verbose version of futurist. You let your reptilian brain do the thinking for you and then you type and type and type. Tsk-tsk.

And the Godwin’s law award goes to Jill!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

“Cars, motorcycles, buses, pedestrians all use shared … Cars get freeways, buses get bus lanes, pedestrians get sidewalks, even though they also use shared infrastructure.”
And bikes get crosswalks (for the swing around traffic move), get to ignore stop signs, get to get away with it, and react with anger when questioned … oh, and get more and more taxpayer money.
No.
Enough. Bravo Polk merchants, bravo.
Lol @ lol the “serious debater” getting crushed by watcher.

i did not purposely use nazi to kill the thread. but i thought hoohah cream might do it.

Lies said
“blah blah blah… bikes… blah… get more and more taxpayer money.”
Wake me up when get cyclists get 0.01% of the amount of taxpayer money that’s been spent on drivers… and I wont even ask you to factor in the money spent on wars to protect oil sources.

Why don’t you provide the wiki definitions of “fact” and “opinion,” so that everyone will know?
Please. You’re so transparent. But you’re part if an awesome movement though. Of scofflaw jerks.

“Given that the last number you presented was wildly inaccurate, I’ll need to see references supporting your $50K & $300K numbers”
This is my second attempt at posting references, the first time I posted the Bike Coalition expenditures statement for “Bike to Work Day” it got blocked by the “filter”.
District 5 Diary has a story up right now about the 300K given to the Bike Coalition for “community outreach” as well as a complete breakdown of how the Bike Coalition spends the 50K a year it receives from City Hall. I would post links but the filter might block me again.
I was wrong however in that the community outreach money originally was a grant from CALTRANS, but then added to by various city funds.

What made me “Fed Up” was the cost per hour charged to the city by Bike Coalition staff for “Bike to Work Day” which is only ONE DAY. I see no reason why $50,000 a year needs to be spent promoting and organizing this. (And yes- I wrote that $250K did come from Caltrans regarding “community outreach, but Meter Madness has an excellent post about all of the Federal dollars the bike coaltion gets as well to staff their many trips to international conferences to whine about cars).
I think the bigger issue is not the money, but the revolving door of SFMTA staff positions being filled by former Bike Coaliton staff. How can we fix MUNI with people who only see bikes as the answer?
How about fixing the MUNI station escalators instead?

What is wrong? That they get $50K a year to promote bike to work day from our tax money? Are you aware of the video online linked from Meter Madness where the Bike Coalition head brags about joining the group because it was incredible how much tax money was available to fund the organization? That they received over 300K from Caltrans and SFGov to promote their own organization? That there is a revolving door between the two organizations in both funding and staffing. I only mispoke regarding that Caltrans was a source of one of their funded projects instead of the SFMTA, but I corrected (and apologized for this mistake) ONLINE before you ever “corrected” me.

What’s more important in your personal cosmology, lol? having the last say in every message board thread you ever post in? Or flipping off motorists after you zip into crosswalks to skip red lights? Tough one huh.

The May 2nd SFMTA presentation at the Board of Supervisors Meeting, followed by citizen comments perfectly illustrate this issue.
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=164&clip_id=17412
Jumping around, the gentleman’s comment at 3:08:24 gets a huge audience reaction (“stop listening to the bike people ONLY”) and the final comments from the Board members should tell San Franciscans that the a new powerful coalition is forming that will make sure they have influence with the SFMTA equal to their size, and it is not the bike people, but Muni users, car owners and business owners. What was interesting is EVERYONE asked for MORE and better public transit, which tells me there is a common ground that SFMTA should be taking advantage of.
Again and again, citizens got up to ask for MORE transit, better transit service, additional routes, safer trains and bus vehicles, cleaner stations, etc. My questions is why wasn’t the Bike Coalition sending speakers to this meeting to present their side? It was obvious from comments from the audience that the Bike Coalition needs to start some serious image rebuilding with the rest of the city. Their position may or may not be wrong, but how they worked with the SFMTA and not neighborhood groups and business owners to create a better dialogue has caused serious blowback to their cause. I see a need for safe bike passage routes in the city, and I think they could be part of the future, but as many speakers mentioned, they do not like being scolded and instructed by the Bike Coalition as to how they should live their lives in this city.

“America’s driving boom is over”
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/americas-driving-boom-over-study-indicates-1C9929352

who needs lanes when you ahve sidewalks… man, someone needs to do something about this stuff.
Woman Seriously Injured By Sidewalk Biker
“Sunday afternoon a woman in her 60s suffered a life-threatening head injury when a 21-year-old male cyclist struck her as she walked in a pedestrian lane (commonly referred to as “the sidewalk”) near Market and Stockton Streets.
The victim was taken to S.F. General Hospital around 12:30 p.m. yesterday. Although early reports said the cyclist received a citation and was released at the scene, SFPD spokesman Officer Gordon Shyy said the investigation is ongoing.
While there may be some legal gray areas for bicycle-based aggression such as (allegedly) trying to beat yellow lights, the San Francisco Transportation Code Sec. 7.2.12 is pretty clear that it is illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk if you’re over the age of 13. It’s also really f#$king annoying and you’re a grownup on a bicycle, so take a bicycle safety course and get back on the streets already.
Also, anecdotal evidence shows many people riding bicycles on the sidewalk in San Francisco are also meth users. So there’s that.”

I am also pi$$ed at cyclist taking the sidewalk for their personal bike path. I always feel I should kick the front tire by “accident” but I guess I’d be as stupid as the cyclist.
In general do not forget the multiple accidents from these past few months. Truck vs pedestrian. Bus vs pedestrian. Car vs pedestrians. Garbage truck vs bike. Garbage truck vs pedestrians. Lost of gruesome stuff happens. Stay safe people.