News

When I was on the Bicycle Advisory Committee back in 2002, the SFPD had made at training video for cops on cyclist issues. Some good its done for the largely (2/3) commuter force which brings its suburban values across the bridges to work each day.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has repeatedly refused to engage in a campaign to get the SFPD to enforce the California Vehicle Code against motorists which put cyclists lives in danger, preferring to tepidly urge the SFPD to enforce the law equally against motorists and cyclists which break the law.

The SFBC has also jumped on board a campaign, spearheaded by the Senior Action Network to get the cops to prosecute cyclists which ride on the sidewalks as a danger to seniors and peds, even though records show that 3 pedestrians were killed by cyclists over the past 15 years, perhaps one of them involved a cyclist hitting a ped on the sidewalk.

So we have the SFBC urging prosecution of cyclists more often than not, declining to unite with peds to solve our common problem first--the SFPD failing to enforce the CVC on motorists who put people's lives and limb at risk.

Oh, yeah, the SFBC got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the bike plan update in 2004, and as a result of their influence, bike policy is wedged in neutral and we can expect it to be for some time. In addition, the remaining 99% of roadway that is not part of the bike network has crappy streets and no enforcement to keep cyclists and peds safe.

My read is that motorist violations of the CVC comprise the most crimes committed in SF each day, with cyclist violations probably next. But the difference here is that when motorists break the law, cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists are put at risk. When cyclists break the law, the cyclist puts the cyclist at risk, maybe a pedestrian on occasion.

Instead of equal enforcement, I'd prefer an equitable enforcement, where a public health analysis is put in place such that cop priorities are based on preventing observed injuries and deaths or observed total violations that count (where injury or death is possible if a cyclist did not react, forfeiting right of way) rather than on suburban cop prejudice and advocates who prefer to play nicey nice with staff and other advocates, betraying their constituencies in the process.

I don't think that anyone is made safer when cops enforce red light runners at 3AM on deserted streets because they're bored and too scared to confront violent crime, but that's what the SFBC is giving the SFPD license to do by putting the interests of cyclists last.

-marc

Comment by marc salomon — May 7, 2008 @ 08:55AM

The first misconception bicyclists have, is that it is their right to be on the road.
It is a peivilege! Which can be taken away for not following the rules. Unfortunatly there do not seem to be any rules for bicyclist to follow. Sharing the road, in a bicyclists mind, is riding three abreast. I would call that blocking the road. The legal term for it is, "Impeading the Flow of Traffic". Which is a moving violation.
However, writing a traffic ticket to a bicyclist seems to be a waste of time since there are no license's or requirements to drive a bike in this city. Therefore no repercussions.
Perhaps that is the answer. Make all bicyclists take a safty class, pay a fee, maintain insurance and keep a valid bike licensse on them at all times.
Another problem is that the attitude, "I have the right to be here" usally is followed by, "They never see me". Unfortuneity, it his true. Often, as hard as I try, sometimes I don't see a bicyclists. Therefore again, common sence would apply, "assume that car does not see you". Defensive riding in this town consists of, riding in groups (Blocking traffic) or forcing drivers to slow down by dodging traffic, only pissing drivers off, making them hostile. Perhaps, less bicyclists would be hit if one of those 8 foot orange triangle flags were required. But, that is very unlikely since most bicyclist don't even ride with the current required safty lights.
Holding EVERY driver on the street respondsible and mature would be a start to peacefull and SHAREING use of the streets.

Comment by Michael Schildknecht — May 7, 2008 @ 08:06PM

Perhaps the reason that barely more than 3 percent of commute trips are made by bicycle is because when push comes to shove, it's not a very practical means of commuting. Who wants to go to work smelling rank from sweating from the physical exertion that bicycling requires? In case you haven't noticed, Matt, San Francisco has hills, which make commuting (uphill anyway) a less than attractive proposition.

Although you are right on when you say that bicycling is the past time of irresponsible people. It's because it allows the bicyclist to be a politically correct asshole. It's not eco-friendly to drive a monster pickup truck or SUV in the Bay Area, so assholes ride bikes instead. That way they can break traffic laws with impunity, bring the evening commute to a standstill once a month in Critical Mass, run down hikers on Mt. Tamalpais on their mountain bikes, block the aisle on BART, and play the aggrieved victim when a driver changes lanes and doesn't see him because they are doing their part to stop global warming.

This non-driving, non-bicycle riding public transit taker and walker has no common cause to make with bicyclists. They are part of the problem.

Comment by Patrick Carroll — May 8, 2008 @ 07:25PM