I have lived in the beautiful city of San Francisco for several years now, and it is truly a lovely place. The one thing that keeps annoying me, however, are the bicyclists. I have a serious question, here, and would like an honest answer:

Why is it that all cyclists in the city of San Francisco completely ignore all traffic signs? They regularly blow right through stop signs and red lights. They go the wrong way on one-waty streets. I am a motorcyclist, and would fear for my life if I blew through a stop sign.

In fact, most SF cyclists feel it to be a God-given right of theirs to ignore all signs and signals, and see doing so as an expression of their creativity and free will.

Many times I have very nearly collided with a cyclist when I have had the right-of-way, on, say, green lights, or when I have no stopsign and they do. Up to now I have been content to ignore it for the most part, figuring if a cyclist strikes me by blowing through an intersection illegally, they will wind up worse-off than me. I have, occasionally, seen fit to point out to said cyclists the stop sign or red light they just blew past, and I am always met with surprisingly intense hostility.

Today, however, was a watershed event. I was on Market street headed east, and turned left onto Octavia. I was to go two blocks north, then turn right onto Oak in anticipation of heading up Franklin. Now, the way the city has Octavia set up, there are stoplights on Octavia, but there is a frontage street to the right that has stopsigns along its length. Here I am, headed up Octavia on a green wave, and up ahead to the right I notice a fellow on a bicycle cruising along the frontage street. He blows through the first stopsign without slowing. I am now coming up to the intersection of Octavia and Oak, where I have a green light and am planning on making a right turn. I am pretty certain this fellow is going to blow right through the stopsign there, but I decide I don't want to let him get off scott free. So I make my right turn onto Oak just as he blows past the stopsign there. I brake to avoid him, he swerves to avoid me. I figure, mission accomplished: I showed him that to blow through those stopsigns is not healthy for him, without actually taking him out.

So now I head down Oak, and he endeavors to follow me, while yelling a stream of insults at me. I could have twisted the throttle and been done with him, but I decided to engage him in the debate, so I yell at him something along the lines of "There's a stopsign back there, ****wad." I figure I'll speak to him in his own language in an effort to reach him. Instead, he hocks a lugie and spits on me. Spits on me! I brake hard, intending to now teach him the error of his ways on foot. However, he, being the chicken-**** that he is, spins the bike around and rides away, yes, the wrong way on a one-way street.

So, as far as I am concerned now, there is open season on SF cyclists. Every single time I see one of them flargantly violating the vehicle code, I will take it upon myself to flag them down and educate them about the risks they are taking. Or at least, make sure they know how stupid they are being.

I know full well I am likely to be flamed heartily by you folks, being in the belly of the beast, as it were, here on this site. However that does not change the fact that San Francisco cyclists see it as their duty to break all the laws, and do not seem to care about the possibility of inconveniencing or injuring someone else in doing so.

Why is that?

I would just point out that there are people who use poor judgement while riding bicycles as well as driving motor vehicles. Unfortunately an accident caused by a motor vehicle can potentially cause significant human loss.

There are a number of fatalities to law abiding cyclists caused by vehicle drivers. It may be a simple mistake of changing a radio station or dialing a phone number, swerving just a little ...

This is not a cyclists are right and vehicle drivers are wrong response.

The world is not a perfect place and all we can do is control what we do. I know when I am driving or riding that I will run into people who are operating there equipment in a dangerous manner.

I just do the best that I can.

Take care.

The problem is, a lot of cyclists you see in SF are not doing any favors to the cycling community. Most cyclists, discounting the ones who run red lights all the time, do abide by the traffic laws. I know of what you are complaining about, because I see that all the time when I do go cycling around SF. This is why I don't ride through SF very often. The problem is, there are some riders, who are new to riding, see others doing the same thing, and think it is okay to run reds, ride on sidewalks, ride the wrong way, etc ...

Next time you see us on the bike, and we are law abiding, don't buzz us at 75 mph, like most do on Skyline, ok?

Don't feed the trolls.

There are idiots everywhere: in cars, on bicycles, on motorcycles... Sometimes I'm an idiot. :p

At least twice a month I have to avoid cars turning right on a red without a stop. It's an intersection that I know folks tend to run, so I'm just really cautious and wave at them as they cut me off. I've even watched some of my teacher co-workers roll through it.

Car vs bike - I'm going to lose, even if I'm right.

Veronica

Every mode of transportation has a pretty equal distritbution of a-holes. You just happened to come across an a-hole cyclist. It happens. Don't take it out on the undeserving.

Why is it that ALL cyclists in the city of San Francisco completely ignore ALL traffic signs?


INCORRECT

You can't say ALL of us do anything. Sure, there are some poor cyclists out there, but they are far outnumbered by the poor drivers.

Not all of us ignore traffic signs. But I agree with you...I see a lot of other cyclists ignoring stop lights, particularly stop signs. I particularly don't like the wrong-way cyclists, especially when they're bombing down the lane I'm climbing up on!

I don't want to get all worked up so I'll keep it short. Guys like that do not represent what I consider cyclists. Let me guess, was he on a fixed? Jeans, T-shirt and no helmet? And I'm not picking on messengers or hipsters, I see plenty of guys in kits and $4k bikes running stop signs at full speed. There are a lot of people running around the city doing stupid sh1t making all of us look bad. One of the reason why I hate critical mass. Be the bigger person. Like someone here said, it doesn't matter who's at fault, the person on the bike will always lose. Don't be the guy that puts someone underground even if that person is an idiot.

Anyway, don't take it out on the rest of us. Guys like that will get theirs one of these days. Next time, he'll have a run in with a truck and he won't be so lucky.

Zephyr40k, that was a fair enough assessment.
I similarly see cyclists doing things in urban settings that make me feel embarrassed to be a fellow cyclist.
That person you saw (and I'm guessing he was wearing tight peg-legged denim pants cut to the calf, a studded white belt, tight tee-shirt, and no helmet) was NOT an ambassador for our sport.
We salute the decent motorcyclists out there and you'll often find many great cyclists are also huge motorcycle aficionados as well.
Sorry for your initial negative experience. The vast majority of us are a pleasant and courteous lot!

:beer:

In fact, most SF cyclists feel it to be a God-given right of theirs to ignore all signs and signals, and see doing so as an expression of their creativity and free will.


Not true. Of course there are idiots. But most, and certainly not all of cyclist in SF feel this way.


So, as far as I am concerned now, there is open season on SF cyclists. Every single time I see one of them flargantly violating the vehicle code, I will take it upon myself to flag them down and educate them about the risks they are taking. Or at least, make sure they know how stupid they are being.

See this...


Don't be the guy that puts someone underground even if that person is an idiot.

Anyway, don't take it out on the rest of us. Guys like that will get theirs one of these days. Next time, he'll have a run in with a truck and he won't be so lucky.

+1

I would advise against attempting to teach these riders a lesson with aggression and/or vigilante justice. They will most likely have their day regardless.

I was hit by a car when I was obeying all traffic laws, the guy just wasn't paying any attention. So riders are taking enough of a risk in everyday riding, without any added aggressive drivers trying to take them out.

I'm from San Francisco and it has always been like that. Part of the liberal city way I suppose. There is nothing you can do about it, the bad cyclists whatever their % is on the road will not change their ways. Then when they get creamed by a car or a bus, the uproar from community follows until it settles down after a few weeks. Are there any former bike messengers here? I am curious as to how much their job and pay would be impacted by this. Not to single them out but a lot do seem to take awful risks at intersections downtown.

I normally stop at any sign, but on some group rides.. hmm we just mow right through them.

Don't feed the trolls.

EXACTLY!!!!! :rolleyes:

It's not feeding the trolls when there are legitimate issues being observed.

I see the same thing in Portola Valley (and it's the "experienced" cyclists doing it). I watched my roommate blow through a stop sign and take a right on red without even checking to see if the car at the intersection was going to go. I ripped him a new one when we got home and his response was "well everyone else is doing it".

There are quite a few cyclists out there in full kits that are tremendously bad examples for the newer riders (but they're so leet that you can't even talk to them). I especially like the guy that runs the red lights on Central Expressway in the morning on his Cervelo going northbound. Hey, you @#$@@, the protected side of the T intersections is on the other side.....

Why is it that all cyclists in the city of San Francisco completely ignore all traffic signs?

Pick an intersection on any heavily bicycled street in the city. Together, we can watch it for 24 hours. If, after 24 hours, not one cyclist has stopped at the sign or light, I will give you $1000. If a cyclist has stopped, you give me $1000. Let me know when you want to do it.

Hyperbole aside,

the proper bet would be, let's count if more cars or if more bikes run a stop sign over a span of 24 hours. I'll bet you a grand that it'll be more bikes.

I moved out here from North Carolina where we were afraid to be on the country roads while biking. The cars here in CA are so much friendlier than in the South and frankly, I just see a lot of cyclists abusing the traffic laws.

the proper bet would be, let's count if more cars or if more bikes run a stop sign over a span of 24 hours. I'll bet you a grand that it'll be more bikes.

The OP said he what he said. The proposition was for him.

I don't deny that many bikes do not follow traffic rules in the city, or elsewhere. However, as soon as someone says they've never seen a bike stop at a light or obey a sign, they lose all credibility. (And in my experience I run into people who say this quite often.) The OP didn't present his statement as hyperbole; he said he had a "serious question" and wanted "an honest answer." If he really believes he has never seen a bicyclist stop at a light, ever, in all his years of living in SF, I assume he will gladly take me up on my wager; it might be the easiest $1000 he ever makes.

Since you're looking for a bet, though, here's one for you. Let's count if more cars or more bikes exceed the speed limit on any San Francisco street over 24 hours. I'll bet you a grand that it'll be more cars. To me, that bet is just as "proper" as the one you suggest.

Hyperbole aside,

the proper bet would be, let's count if more cars or if more bikes run a stop sign over a span of 24 hours. I'll bet you a grand that it'll be more bikes.



Easy win for Regenman!

I work in the SOMA area and I see cyclists everyday. Some obey the law while many others do not. The OP has a very legitimate complaint. I walk 4 blocks to and from the BART station on Market and there always seems to be cyclists that buzz cars and pedestrians as well by taking turns on red lights or running red lights at intersections.

Of course, not all cyclists do that, just like not all drivers and motorcyclists break the law either. But we, as cyclists, are probably more apparent by the erratic behaviors of the few that more of the masses (masses being drivers and pedestrians) are negatively effected by such bad behaviors and habits. So we get a bad rap by a broader general public opinion. Hence, the attitudes of guys like the OP. It's a natural reaction to the @sses that ride as such. So I can't totally blame him for his rant. I've felt the same way. And I bet many who work in the City have as well. The OP just didn't react in a positive manner to diffuse the situation in this instance.

So what do we do about it? Be more careful and aware as a cyclist, driver and pedestrian because there are idiots that'll run the red light "because everyone else does!" If we run into a situation where we feel the need to reprimand someone else, do it constructively and calmly. Yelling will just get the other person mad and possibly spat upon, like the OP. And no matter how you commute, be respectful of others. Not everyone will be but at least you can do something about it. And it's that one time that you are considerate that may change the mind of someone like the OP.

So just be considerate of others and obey traffic laws. :)

So just be considerate of others and obey traffic laws. :)

Bingo.

As for the cyclists in SF, I agree that not all of 'em behave like the ass-hat the OP described. But, from my observation, there is a noticably higher percentage of hyper-aggressive riders in SF than out in the 'burbs. There is also a higher percentage of hyper-aggressive dirvers and hyper-aggressive pedestrians in SF, too. Not all of any member of these categories are jerks, and not even most of them are. But the crowded-road conditions tend to emphasize the aggression factor all around - if for no other reason than the faint-of-heart self-select to get out of Dodge or take a bus (and don't get me started on Muni drivers!).

Now my observation could be off. But even assuming that the jerk-to-normal-to-exceptionally-nice ratios are exactly the same in SF and, say, Walnut Creek, Menlo Park and San Rafael, SF has much higher population denisty than any of those places (and waaaaaay higher than out on Morgan Territory Road or Tunitas Canyon). That means that, on average, you are much more likely to encounter a jerkwad cyclist, driver or pedestrian in SF at any given moment than pretty much anywhere else in the Bay Area, simply because there are more people of all stripes and persuasions per square mile.

Having said all that, I hope the alleged cyclist who hocked a greenie at the OP isn't surprised that, when he tacoes his front wheel in a pothole and is lying bleeding in the street, nobody is interested in helping his cursing, venom-spewing self.

You're right! I'm impatient but some of these folks at the evening rush hour are just nuts. I'm talking about pedestrians in this case... they can't wait 2 seconds for the light to turn green so they cross the street while cars are still coming. Sheesh!!

What else is funny is that I go to the BART station and all these people jam up the escalators to walk quickly down! Yet the stairs, which I take, are generally pretty empty. But they'll wait in line to run down the escalators instead of walking down empty stairs! I sometimes race them down to show them that I can be just as fast. Most times I beat them down! Hahahaha!

I read through about half this thread.. can't stand it anymore. Sorry if you made a post and I didn't read it, but the problem seems rather simple.

PEOPLE.

nuff said.

One of the earlier posters struck an interesting note with the idea of "predictability" by the cyclists. When riders are weaving, cutting through corner gas stations, hopping curbs, etc., etc., it makes for uneven "flow" in traffic. That is why someone who sets their cruise control at 80 m.p.h. in the left lane is an easier challenge with which to address, even though they're also violating the law. They're more predictable.

The only thing we can do as cyclists is take the high road whenever possible and seek to be good roadway users when we're out and about.

I have lived in the beautiful city of San Francisco for several years now, and it is truly a lovely place. The one thing that keeps annoying me, however, are the bicyclists. I have a serious question, here, and would like an honest answer:

Why is it that all cyclists in the city of San Francisco completely ignore all traffic signs? They regularly blow right through stop signs and red lights. They go the wrong way on one-waty streets. I am a motorcyclist, and would fear for my life if I blew through a stop sign.

In fact, most SF cyclists feel it to be a God-given right of theirs to ignore all signs and signals, and see doing so as an expression of their creativity and free will.

Many times I have very nearly collided with a cyclist when I have had the right-of-way, on, say, green lights, or when I have no stopsign and they do. Up to now I have been content to ignore it for the most part, figuring if a cyclist strikes me by blowing through an intersection illegally, they will wind up worse-off than me. I have, occasionally, seen fit to point out to said cyclists the stop sign or red light they just blew past, and I am always met with surprisingly intense hostility.

Today, however, was a watershed event. I was on Market street headed east, and turned left onto Octavia. I was to go two blocks north, then turn right onto Oak in anticipation of heading up Franklin. Now, the way the city has Octavia set up, there are stoplights on Octavia, but there is a frontage street to the right that has stopsigns along its length. Here I am, headed up Octavia on a green wave, and up ahead to the right I notice a fellow on a bicycle cruising along the frontage street. He blows through the first stopsign without slowing. I am now coming up to the intersection of Octavia and Oak, where I have a green light and am planning on making a right turn. I am pretty certain this fellow is going to blow right through the stopsign there, but I decide I don't want to let him get off scott free. So I make my right turn onto Oak just as he blows past the stopsign there. I brake to avoid him, he swerves to avoid me. I figure, mission accomplished: I showed him that to blow through those stopsigns is not healthy for him, without actually taking him out.

So now I head down Oak, and he endeavors to follow me, while yelling a stream of insults at me. I could have twisted the throttle and been done with him, but I decided to engage him in the debate, so I yell at him something along the lines of "There's a stopsign back there, ****wad." I figure I'll speak to him in his own language in an effort to reach him. Instead, he hocks a lugie and spits on me. Spits on me! I brake hard, intending to now teach him the error of his ways on foot. However, he, being the chicken-**** that he is, spins the bike around and rides away, yes, the wrong way on a one-way street.

So, as far as I am concerned now, there is open season on SF cyclists. Every single time I see one of them flargantly violating the vehicle code, I will take it upon myself to flag them down and educate them about the risks they are taking. Or at least, make sure they know how stupid they are being.

I know full well I am likely to be flamed heartily by you folks, being in the belly of the beast, as it were, here on this site. However that does not change the fact that San Francisco cyclists see it as their duty to break all the laws, and do not seem to care about the possibility of inconveniencing or injuring someone else in doing so.

Why is that?

I agree with spingineer and the other regular posters in this forum. A few bikers breaking traffic laws is not every cyclist. If we make the same assumption about people in cars - then every driver speeds and is drunk.

As a cyclist - I am sorry to hear that the guy spit on you. That is just wrong. I suggest you email the sf bike coalition - sfbike.org. They need to hear your story.

... in the same condition you started out in!

That's #1

"Why is that?" That's a good question - because they can, eh? ...and there is precedent.

I'd be curious to know if it's same in New York City? How about ultra right wing backwood type places where there are not any bicylists (and any who show up are considered deviant)?

I don't spend much time in SF, but in Berkeley, pedestrians will stride out into traffic without being CERTAIN that vehicular traffic is not a threat; there is a "trust" that the drivers will not kill or hurt them! Watch 'em; many peds don't even look.

There's more to it I suppose, like the balance between behaving as if vehicles represent a DEADLY threat and exerting some claim to OUR road. What the OP describes is the balance tipped way over to the "claim" side.

I don't always stop at stop signs - I can see clearly that NO traffic is approaching OR stopped at the other three (or two) legs of the intersection, I breeze it. Lights are a different matter, for me.

If there is traffic, I don't proceed unless there's eye contact AND it's my turn. Often drivers will "wave" me through (usually after waiting me to a full stop when I'm obviously stopping and they could've got the hell out of my way already, and they have the right of way, oh well); nothing doin' pal! I go when I know that it's safe, not when you say so, especially if you "made" me stop, or, I'm already stopped.

One more thing - I do make an effort to acknowledge what I consider proper respect for me as user of the road. A nod, salute, wave, smile, some indication that I appreciate the hesitation to pass until safe, allowing a few extra feet, the eye contact, etc.

No, not EVERY cyclist in SF blows stop signs, but the vast majority that I see, DO ... and I strongly suspect the drivers in the city are more hostile to cyclists because of it.

Cyclists have the same rights, rules, and responsibilities as motorized vehicles on the road. Period. I feel like each time I go out on my bike, I am slowly earning back the respect that cyclists deserve from bikers and drivers -- each time we ignore the rules, we become a menace that drivers want to eradicate.

Cyclists have the same rights, rules, and responsibilities as motorized vehicles on the road. Period.

My personal opinion is that the police should ticket bikes who don't follow the rules of the road. When some idiot on a bike runs a light and almost hits *me* on my bike, sometimes I feel like giving them a good talking to. But a nice fine would do much more. What's a red light fine now, $250?

OP- I would just keep in mind, if you hit a bike with your car the person on the bike usually gets pretty messed up. I know this guy who ran the stop sign's an idiot, but is it really worth risking seriously injuring or killing someone?

I have lived in the beautiful city of San Francisco for several years now, and it is truly a lovely place. The one thing that keeps annoying me, however, are the bicyclists. I have a serious question, here, and would like an honest answer:

Why is it that all cyclists in the city of San Francisco completely ignore all traffic signs? They regularly blow right through stop signs and red lights. They go the wrong way on one-waty streets. I am a motorcyclist, and would fear for my life if I blew through a stop sign.

In fact, most SF cyclists feel it to be a God-given right of theirs to ignore all signs and signals, and see doing so as an expression of their creativity and free will.

Many times I have very nearly collided with a cyclist when I have had the right-of-way, on, say, green lights, or when I have no stopsign and they do. Up to now I have been content to ignore it for the most part, figuring if a cyclist strikes me by blowing through an intersection illegally, they will wind up worse-off than me. I have, occasionally, seen fit to point out to said cyclists the stop sign or red light they just blew past, and I am always met with surprisingly intense hostility.

Today, however, was a watershed event. I was on Market street headed east, and turned left onto Octavia. I was to go two blocks north, then turn right onto Oak in anticipation of heading up Franklin. Now, the way the city has Octavia set up, there are stoplights on Octavia, but there is a frontage street to the right that has stopsigns along its length. Here I am, headed up Octavia on a green wave, and up ahead to the right I notice a fellow on a bicycle cruising along the frontage street. He blows through the first stopsign without slowing. I am now coming up to the intersection of Octavia and Oak, where I have a green light and am planning on making a right turn. I am pretty certain this fellow is going to blow right through the stopsign there, but I decide I don't want to let him get off scott free. So I make my right turn onto Oak just as he blows past the stopsign there. I brake to avoid him, he swerves to avoid me. I figure, mission accomplished: I showed him that to blow through those stopsigns is not healthy for him, without actually taking him out.

So now I head down Oak, and he endeavors to follow me, while yelling a stream of insults at me. I could have twisted the throttle and been done with him, but I decided to engage him in the debate, so I yell at him something along the lines of "There's a stopsign back there, ****wad." I figure I'll speak to him in his own language in an effort to reach him. Instead, he hocks a lugie and spits on me. Spits on me! I brake hard, intending to now teach him the error of his ways on foot. However, he, being the chicken-**** that he is, spins the bike around and rides away, yes, the wrong way on a one-way street.

So, as far as I am concerned now, there is open season on SF cyclists. Every single time I see one of them flargantly violating the vehicle code, I will take it upon myself to flag them down and educate them about the risks they are taking. Or at least, make sure they know how stupid they are being.

I know full well I am likely to be flamed heartily by you folks, being in the belly of the beast, as it were, here on this site. However that does not change the fact that San Francisco cyclists see it as their duty to break all the laws, and do not seem to care about the possibility of inconveniencing or injuring someone else in doing so.

Why is that?


What a ****ing loser.

That ain't cool, the motorcyclist is right.
Most bicyclists in SF don't obey traffic laws.
It might be because they don't know the laws,
or they were not taught that bicyclist have to obey the laws. Most bicyclists were taught how to ride a bike when they were little kids, and kids aren't taught laws. Somehow the lesson never gets through.

There's two different types of bicyclist in the city: the types dressed in brightly colored tight fitting lycra who tend to obey laws and have a better education. Then there's the ordinary population who happen to use bikes as transportaion- these cyclists tend to dress in regular clothes, although there is some cross dressing among cyclists in SF. :)

It's also good to keep in mind that most cyclists in the city are not true cyclists, they're just young adults who have low paying jobs and can only afford a bike to get around. It's not a stretch to think that a young-male-havenot might react with anger at the slightest setback or annoyance. Put him on a brakeless fixed gear bike and it just gets worse. Trying to ride one of those things in city traffic will make anyone more excitable.

Personally I'm at the stage in my life where I seek out calmness and control, but I still remember what it's like to be 21 and full of piss.

I agree with Talon. I lived in SF from 1988 to 1995, and I hardley ever get back there. This October I went back and took my bike for transportation. A few things left me gobsmacked: There are about twice as many bicyles on the streets as before when I lived there. Most (not all) ride like total a-holes, I felt embarassed to be on a bike. The OP makes a good point, but not every last cyclist is a jerk with no regard for others on the street. The OP also deserves credit for not running down the spitter, I would have put him on his butt in the same situation. It always amazes me to see how people react to posts such as this- calling the OP a troll, changing the subject, etc.

I agree that a lot of bike riders do not obey all the traffic laws. Some do. I read a statistic related to Santa Cruz recently where the majority of accidents involving a Bike and a vehicle were caused by the Bike. This said, I think the reality we also need to consider is that when bikers do something stupid it is usually only themselves they are placing at risk. I suppose they could cause a more serious traffic accident, but they are mostly the ones that are going to get run down or hurt. I don't see anyone complaining about bikers running over pedestrians or anything like that. This is also the reason I think it is stupid to apply the same drunk driving laws to bike riders as drivers of vehicles, i.e. the risk to the general public is not the same at all. Obviously no one should drive or ride if they are so drunk they are going to cause dangers to others, but I would certainly rather have the drunks out on a bike than driving a two ton vehicle.

I don't see anyone complaining about bikers running over pedestrians or anything like that. This is also the reason I think it is stupid to apply the same drunk driving laws to bike riders as drivers of vehicles, i.e. the risk to the general public is not the same at all. Obviously no one should drive or ride if they are so drunk they are going to cause dangers to others, but I would certainly rather have the drunks out on a bike than driving a two ton vehicle.

I disagree. A bike can severely injure or kill a pedestrian pretty efficiently. The law is fine as it is in California. The only mode of transportation suitable for drunks is walking. They can only kill themselves.

I never run stop signs, but i treat some as yield signs, similarly there are a few red lights that i treat as stop signs. No, i will not change my ways, thanks for asking though. Really, find me one person who truly blows through a red light without at least stopping, and i will deem them an jerkoff.

Let me ask you this. When you walk in the city and you are waiting for a walk sign and there are no cars coming in the direction of travel, do you simply start walking even though the walk sign has no changed? What is the difference?

I disagree. A bike can severely injure or kill a pedestrian pretty efficiently. The law is fine as it is in California. The only mode of transportation suitable for drunks is walking. They can only kill themselves.

Actually every year there are several fatalities caused by cyclist running over / into pedestrians. Most of the deaths are said to happen because of cyclist riding on the sidewalks at high rates of speeds.

The city does not keep an official count on deaths caused but cyclist...

I agree the only suitable means for transportation for a drunk or someone who has been drinking is to walk... maybe a bus or taxi if they are not totally belligerent fool.

There are a lot of cyclists that do not follow any kind of road law when riding. There are also just as many drivers out there who do the same thing. I would love to see state and other city cops actually start nailing cyclist and motorist alike who flagrantly disobey road laws. This probably won’t ever happen because in most California cities the cops tend to never do traffic work or actively patrol the city neighborhoods.
Then again these are my thoughts / observations and I could be completely wrong. :p

Actually every year there are several fatalities caused by cyclist running over / into pedestrians. Most of the deaths are said to happen because of cyclist riding on the sidewalks at high rates of speeds.

Not sure if you mean in the U.S. generally, or in San Francisco specifically. In SF, there have been three reported cases of cyclists killing pedestrians since 2000. See this Chronicle story (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/01/BAG9KODSC26.DTL&hw=cyclist+pedestrian+death&sn=001&sc=1000) for details. Except that there are no details. After that story was published, I called the Health Department to try and learn more about these incidents, and the person I spoke with said the department had no information about where they happened, on what dates, what the circumstances were, etc., just that they had happened.

I was mainly writing about SF but it seems to be about the same nationwide. The federal groups who are responsible for collecting the data on transportation related accidents rarely pay attention to cycling. When they do pay attention to something like death by cyclist it’s because the problem has caught the attention of the media or some cyclist has gone and pissed off a high profile person.

The thing with SF is we have at least 2 sometimes more of these crashes, accidents or whatever we want to call them a year. Sad thing is no one in city hall really cares so no one keeps count. This makes the issue end up going unnoticed to the public’s eye. For example we had three murders in Golden Gate Park this year and nothing was ever mentioned until couple months ago after the 3rd homeless person was killed. This would have gone unpublished in any of the papers had the 3rd person not have died in front of someone’s home and then that murder at first only had a small article until a lot of people started talking about it… Each murder seemed to be identical with how the homeless person was killed and all around the lower end of the park late at night.

I remember reading the articles you posted when it first came out and re read it again just now. I noticed they claim / said there were only 3 reported deaths, but it’s just a number the city has laying around because no reports it to the city groups and no one really collects the days so no one keeps track of these things.

I doubt the Chronicle even tried to investigate anything regarding this subject. It’s kind of sad because this and a lot of other tragic events go unnoticed by our local news papers. The news papers miss out on a lot of news and events that go on and around SF and the bay area. Nothing gets reported unless it’s about to hit AP or has already made it in an AP news wire. I guess it would actually have to do with either of the 2 sf papers having to send someone out to do some real investigation and reporting, which is something that really lacks in the examiner & chronicle… sorry to go on a little off subject rant there.

I was mainly writing about SF but it seems to be about the same nationwide. The federal groups who are responsible for collecting the data on transportation related accidents rarely pay attention to cycling. When they do pay attention to something like death by cyclist it’s because the problem has caught the attention of the media or some cyclist has gone and pissed off a high profile person.

The thing with SF is we have at least 2 sometimes more of these crashes, accidents or whatever we want to call them a year. Sad thing is no one in city hall really cares so no one keeps count. This makes the issue end up going unnoticed to the public’s eye. For example we had three murders in Golden Gate Park this year and nothing was ever mentioned until couple months ago after the 3rd homeless person was killed. This would have gone unpublished in any of the papers had the 3rd person not have died in front of someone’s home and then that murder at first only had a small article until a lot of people started talking about it… Each murder seemed to be identical with how the homeless person was killed and all around the lower end of the park late at night.

I remember reading the articles you posted when it first came out and re read it again just now. I noticed they claim / said there were only 3 reported deaths, but it’s just a number the city has laying around because no reports it to the city groups and no one really collects the days so no one keeps track of these things.

I doubt the Chronicle even tried to investigate anything regarding this subject. It’s kind of sad because this and a lot of other tragic events go unnoticed by our local news papers. The news papers miss out on a lot of news and events that go on and around SF and the bay area. Nothing gets reported unless it’s about to hit AP or has already made it in an AP news wire. I guess it would actually have to do with either of the 2 sf papers having to send someone out to do some real investigation and reporting, which is something that really lacks in the examiner & chronicle… sorry to go on a little off subject rant there.

Yeah, i am sure we need to allocate police resources to going after rogue cyclists. Please....they need to focus on going after the violent criminals that disregard the law instead of some cyclists.

Personally i always obey the hierarchy of the road... cars yield to bikes, bikes yield to peds. peds are the ones who really own the roads in my opinion, and i will yield to them.

The thing with SF is we have at least 2 sometimes more of these crashes, accidents or whatever we want to call them a year.

If not city/federal records, what is your source for this?

For example we had three murders in Golden Gate Park this year and nothing was ever mentioned until couple months ago after the 3rd homeless person was killed. This would have gone unpublished in any of the papers had the 3rd person not have died in front of someone’s home and then that murder at first only had a small article until a lot of people started talking about it…

The Chronicle published information on each of these murders within days of each happening. When the first guy was murdered in September 2006, the Chronicle published a story (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/12/BABADIGEST4.DTL&hw=Golden+Gate+Park+murder&sn=001&sc=1000). When the second guy was murdered in September 2007, the Chronicle published a story (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/06/BA41RVKPN.DTL&hw=Golden+Gate+Park+murder&sn=002&sc=958). When the third guy was murdered in October 2007, the Chronicle published a story (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/BAM8SSCH7.DTL&hw=Golden+Gate+Park+murder&sn=001&sc=1000) three days after it happened, with the lead sentence mentioning the previous murder.

ConstantRider: I was wrong on the murders, No big surprise there :P :lol:
I incorrectly read the date on the first killing I thought they wrote the 1st murder was in 2007. I never saw the other article about the 2nd related death until the written article back in Oct. Which was also the first time i saw them mention anything about the 1st killing. Still article that was in the paper back in Oct for both sf paper were lacking a lot info and nothing has really come out in printed form regarding the investigations for these killings. Scary to think someone maybe out there killing off people for kicks.


Now for the info on the cyclist stuff. I am actually pulling that from my @$$ ;) .. Ok acutally i got the info from a couple of the city's open door meetings that I had attended.

The info came from what was being tossed around by a few of the people / groups who were also in attendance .... Some of the numbers were taken from data collected by the MTA in the late 90's - 2005 a portion of 2006 along with info from independent research/ non profit groups. Out of what I can remember no one stated that any of the data was offical or perfect.

I remember many of the groups in attendance were complaining that the MTA's bicycle info was difficult to deal with and get a good estimate from.I can't remember the whole spill regarding the info, because there were to many people making suggestions as to why MTA’s data was difficult to estimate. So some of the people had their own data.
Anyway today I talked with one of my friends who went to a couple of the meetings with me and now I'm starting to rethink everthing. I should have talked with my friend before spouting off at the mouth :( .The accident info probably was overly inflated , sorry .... oh well...

[QUOTE=0_o;5784038]Actually every year there are several fatalities caused by cyclist running over / into pedestrians. Most of the deaths are said to happen because of cyclist riding on the sidewalks at high rates of speeds.

The city does not keep an official count on deaths caused but cyclist...

More people are killed every year by deer than bikes. You have to take this kind of data in the context that when you have a population of millions or billions of people there are many unusual incidents that are bound to happen, but it is foolish to write laws or base your opinions on those rare occurrences that are really statistical anomalies. I still maintain that it is not justified to enforce the same penalties for drunk bike riding that is for drunk driving. I am not saying people should ride when they are really drunk or would cause any danger, only that the penalty should be commiserate with the risk to society. I do not see how anyone can argue that a Bike rider can cause anywhere near the damage as a person driving a car if they loose control. I am also really not talking about "drunks" per say, but just people that have consumed a few beers or a little wine. The legal driving limit used to .10% and now it is .08. That is like 3 or 4 beers. I may not drive my car after having 3 beers, but I am damn well capable of riding my bike. If you want to follow the control freak argument to its end people should not even walk after drinking as they might stumble and hurt someone. Or the sky might fall. We tried prohibition and it did not work. People drink and we need better ways to minimize the impact it has on society and putting people in jail because they decided to ride their bike instead of driving a car does not help. I have never had this experience myself, but I met someone that did and I felt he was not treated fairly by our court system.

zoltani: I get what you’re saying but you do not have to allocate extra resources to enforce traffic laws here in the city. Just allow or make SFPD patrol the streets more than what they are currently doing now.
SFPD should be out there enforcing the laws not waiting for a call to come across the radio from the dispatch office.
They need to be enforcing the traffic laws while they are out on patrol in their precincts. I am not talking about going out there enforcing the law with an iron fist but just have them out there proactively doing something.
If everyone knows the cops are not going to enforce certain laws then you will have a lot of people just take advantage of that . This always tends to cause problems for everyone else.
I don't know but maybe if you start to consistently enforcing the law to a certain degree it should start making many of those offenders think twice about what they are doing.... Especially after they see how much they have to shell out for a ticket they just got slapped with.