Originally Posted by
jpatkinson
Regarding the "congestion" in SF: it isn't what you may think. I can make ANY round-trip in SF in a car just as quickly as on my bicycle (though my Vespa wins every transportation contest in SF, hands-down). SF is ~ 7 miles x 7 miles. I live SMACK in the center, and work 2 miles from home. It takes me as little as 10 minutes to scoot (I can lane split in a few spots), 12 minutes to drive, and 14 minutes to cycle one way (if I crank). This city is optimized for car travel, at the expense of cyclists.
As for how cyclists are perceived: Two pedestrians in crosswalks have been killed by cyclists in the past two years in SF (
1 and
2), leading to plenty of articles (
NYT,
Huff,
LAtimes) about the sociology of cycling in SF. At least one of these incidents is widely known (
article in Bicycle magazine). Just in 2013 alone, four cyclists were killed in SF (
usually by trucks). To help people appreciate the attitude towards cyclists here, read
THIS.
Maybe my perceptions are "bollocks." Maybe, not.
I visit SF many times a year and your image of the ease of travel by car in SF is silly. Congestion during peak hours in central SF is quite high. Even on a major bike route like Market bikes flow freely while buses and cars are often stuck in gridlock. This is sure to breed resentment -- especially when the fuming cager sees a cyclist escaping the mess of congestion by splitting lanes and rolling lights.
And as for cyclists killing peds...these are incredibly rare events. Similarly, the dog walking ped who caused a cyclist to die is another example of an incredibly rare event that is basically irrelevant when it comes to discussions of public safety on our roads. The fact that you choose to highlight these incredibly rare events is a classic example of *false concern*. If deaths and injury in traffic were really a concern you would, like me, be absolutely up in arms about the direct and indirect harm caused by motorized vehicles.