Police Blotter – July 16, 2015

31 Comments

1. Vision Zero is Vision” make everything hard for anyone who drives a car, make it hard to park, take away lanes for bicycles, and make walking and cycling dummy proof because adults in this city cannot take responsibility and need to be coddled”

2. “Spreckles” Lake! ?#$@

   The proper philanthropic (and sugar magnate) family name is Spreckels.

3. If anyone at the station is reading this, could you please consider doing some speed traps on the area of Clement leading up to the V.A. (38th Ave-ish)? During shift changes, there is a lot of speeding, even (surprisingly) with the speed humps. 7am-8am and ~4pm are times we have noticed.

4. Dear police. Can you please do something about cyclists plowing threw every stop sign on arguello coming from presidio to California? I’ve been yelled at by them for crossing the street in a crosswalk and 1 almost hit my dog. I’ve seen numerous almost accidents with cyclists flicking off drivers even though they ran through the intersection. Those of us living on arguello are sick of it

5. While we are on this note could I add one more? Motorcycles! The noisy ones that tear through our neighborhood every weekend, both alone and in huge packs, their sound reverberating around the whole neighborhood. Any way to stop these guys?

6. motorcycles are legal. bicycle plowing through every stop sign and red light are clearly not. they could write a thousand tickets a day in the inner richmond alone.

7. @Spencer. Loud motorcycles actually are not legal. Neither are speeding motorcycles. Might wanna do some research before you ‘teach’ us anything else. Are we in competition for whose complaint is more important or something?

8. To be fair I see plenty of cars blowing those same stop signs on Arguello and throughout the avenues. Bicycles should definitely be sited for failing to follow traffic rules, but do they really pose the largest threat to public safety?

9. I own a loud motorcycle, and live the neighborhood, what time y’all go to bed?

10. I hope one day the traffic law will be changed so that cyclist can treat stop sign as yield. Enforcement would better reflect the reality. They should be fined only if they don’t yield to right of way.

11. i live on arguello betwen sac and clay. never see cars run the stop signs. Bikes literally blow through them at 20+mph. the laws should not be changed for cyclists. how hard is it to stop completely like everyone else. i cycle and i dont seem to have a problem doing so. why do 95% of cyclists need to break the law.? their entitled attitude is just shameful

12. Re: Cyclists – Wasn’t there a KRON 4 ‘People Behaving Badly’ on the Arguello bicyclists? I think it’s on YouTube. It’s incredibly lame that after that man was killed on Castro, people are still acting so arrogantly.

    @Nick. Your motorcycle is obnoxious. Nobody wants to hear your stupid farting bicycle.

13. How hard? About 2000 joules when riding at about 15 miles/h for someone weighting 180 lbs. A law should be designed so that its enforcement help the emergence of the desired environment. The desired environment in this case is safe intersection crossing for everyone. Complete stopping is a big waste of energy and not a necessity to ensure safe crossing. Enforcement of right of way to pedestrian would have a more positive impact for every one than fining cyclist who don’t put their foot on the ground at an empty intersection.

14. Restarting builds muscle and character. Grow up and obey the laws. People will continue to be annoyed by cyclists if they continue with their entitled attitudes

15. This issue was flogged over three years by the Richmond District Citizens Police Advisory Committee. I can tell you that 80% of the people on the committee felt that the police did not want to put equal force into enforcing the vehicle code on bicyclists and pedestrians for two reasons.

    1. Many Captains felt that the damage done by a car blowing a stop sign was more “serious” that a jay-walker or a bike blowing the intersection.
    2. You could tell they were politically intimidated by the bicycle lobby.

    The problem a number of us had on the committee was that all parties on the street needed to be held to the same standard. Namely, the Rule-of-Law.

    Like graffiti in the NY City Subway on the 1990’s. Once people see things not enforced, they feel like they can do it as well. In the traffic area one car drivers see that others are allowed to ignore the law, there WILL BE a behavioral tendency to want to do so as well.

    There in lies the problem. Bicycles break the law and they plant the seeds for divers to do the same. Their very behavior CREATES the very thing they bitch about the most. Drivers not respecting them on the road.

    Respect is earned and the majority of bicyclists in San Francisco are not doing that.

    The comments about the environment are meaningless. This is about the Rule-of-Law. If you do not like the law then change it. Until then, follow it and stop, full stop, at every stop sign. While I was at the University, a town that moved on two wheels, if we did not stop at every stop sign all over the city we got a ticket. Cars and bicyclists mixed it up just fine.

    Their is an arrogance here in San Francisco by bicyclists that is preventing getting to the vision of less car and more riders. The answer is to get everyone to obey the law no matter what that law is stop or yield.

16. @JD: Yup, exactly right. No one who is not blind or mentally challenged can say with a straight face that the majority–the vast majority–of bicyclists do not blow through stop signs. Of course they do–on hills, in the flatlands, in heavy traffic, in light traffic. Not all bicyclists, of corse, but most. Drivers? They’re no better, rounding corners without stopping–hell, barely even bothering to slow down. Speeding, tailing, driving with one hand on their horn and another on the accelerator (so it seems). Pedestrians? Sauntering into the street on the red and flipping off anyone who has a problem with that. Idiots all. In the long run, tho, pedestrians & bicyclists will be dead before vehicle drivers when it comes to traffic accidents. All of you: stop being so damned arrogant. No where you’re going is so important that you have to risk other people’s lives getting there.

17. I’m with you JD about the Rule-of-Law. That’s why I’m talking about changing the law and specifically avoid discussing the enforcement of the current law.

    Idaho has since 1982 a yield for bicycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

    Lots of interesting links at the bottom for the interested ones.

18. Completely moot arguments – it isn’t about how many wheels a vehicle has, it’s about who’s operating it (same for shoes and who’s wearing them). Almost EVERYONE is either pedestrian or a driver when outside the house. At any given time during the week, I’m a cyclist, a driver or a pedestrian. I admit, my attitude can change accordingly…
    Regardless of how we’re getting places, WE CAN ALL be safer: stop checking our phones while in motion, look both way at intersections, obey traffic laws, etc.
    Maybe some common sense reminders on streets would help, especially with tourists from other countries and states around in the summer. But apparently, we all could use a refresher.

19. I am aware of the Idaho yield law. The head of the bicycle coalition gave a presentation to the policy advisory board on it. What I found annoying was the tone of the presentation. It was not that bicycle riders should be cited until the law was changed. It was because bicycle riders think the existing law was bad they should get a blind eye to enforcement. The presenter was clueless, or just did not care, about the behavioral response of auto drivers to the constant amount of bicycle rider lawlessness.

    It is human nature that if someone else is not playing by the rules that one will feel that they should get the same. This leads to aggressive behavior by auto drivers and that is not good for bicycle riders. Bicycle riders create the very things they don’t want.

    Now if the commenter who wants the law changed also supported a strong enforcement of the existing laws until it is changed, I would feel more sympathy for the that change.

20. Another death in a crosswalk on Cabrillo today, due to a distracted driver. We don’t deserve this in the Richmond.

21. I just read about the death at Cabrillo and 33rd. It’s hard to see how it happened at that particular spot. I’d like to see the police report cover the major pedestrian/bike/car accidents in the area. I always assume Geary and Fulton will be dangerous but I’d like to know if any other spots are seeing more safety issues.

22. @JD Here is how I see the situation involved with the stop signs and cyclists. On one hand, we have the following general goals about traffic:
    1. We want to make street safer for everyone.
    2. We want, as a city, to increase active transportation by increasing the commute by bicycle and foot.

    Example of actions to achieve those goals are:
    1. Add traffic calming infrastructure to reduce speed of vehicles.
    2. Make it more pleasant for cyclist and pedestrian to be on the road.

    Goal 2 helps to achieve goal 1 by replacing more dangerous mean of transport for least dangerous one.

    Reducing the speed of vehicles helps achieving both goals. Hence traffic calming technique should be well received. However, it’s a known fact from observing current behavior that cyclists find it unpleasant to stop. Cyclists want to keep momentum. Therefore, the use of stop sign as a traffic calming methods might work for the first goal, but goes against the second one. Design of traffic calming that keep cycling momentum would help achieve both goals. A quick example: a green wave tuned to average cycling speed.

    Urbanism changes don’t happen over night. So how do we deal with the current accumulated car centered urbanism mistakes? Strictly applying the current law to cyclist would not improve the cycling experience. It would not improve safety in a significant way. In other words we would assign ressources to actions that are not improving our goals.

    On the other hand, as you mentioned JD, lawlessness can bring anger and dangerous behavioral tendency to drivers. Both going against both goals.

    Essentially, we are in tough spot. Status quo is not helping anyone. Things have to change. Both the law and the urbanism design.

    The Idaho yield law can be seen as the quickest compromise to work towards achieving both goals given the current situation. It would remove lawlessness and still make it pleasant for cyclist to travel.

    Until then, I think the police has applied so far good judgement in how the law should be enforced. We would make them a favor by simplifying their work by voting a better adapted law.

23. I have a better idea. What about cyclists just follow the rules and stop trying to create special rules for themselves. Cyclists have a general entitles attitude in SF and it’s not hard to just follow rules. By being jerks and saying screw you to rules and to all other road user, cyclists draw ire and and anger from all other road users. Their attitude makes the situation untenable. Stop trying to make rules for yourself as an entitled class. Try to remember only 2.9% of peoplr commute by bike and 75% of those are white males under 45, which is already a heavily entitled class. Just follow the rules and the other 97.1% won’t be so pissed at you. This is not Idaho. This is a major city

24. @JIM I lived in Copenhagen for awhile (4 years). There, a city leadership decided that active transportation should be a priority. They modified the law and urbanism design to make it more attractive to go by bike. Way back in the 1960s. When I left few years ago, 38% of the daily commute in the city was done by bike. Even then, they felt they could do more. So what I say is, we should work toward improving the city to shift that pathetic 2.9% to something closer to 40%. That will take a generation, but we have to start now. We should not say, well, only 2.9% commute by bike, so let’s focus on the 97%. My point is how can we improve our city so that 40% choose to take their bike instead of their car because it’s the more convenient mean of transportation compared to the alternatives.

25. @JF: You can still drive reasonably well in the city, and a lot of us aren’t density advocates, and we don’t see the symbolic need for everyone to ride a bicycle. What I mean is, it’s not as if SF is in a crisis where solutions must be found that involve bicycles. Not all of us agree that the city needs to get denser and so everyone must ride a bicycle because how else can it work? I have no issue either way – of course I like bicycling but I don’t see the need for everyone to ride one. I am more upset at the condition of the streets for motorists and buses, and the increasingly bad manners of drivers. I’d love to see more light rail, like along Geary. I think it’s great people are using their bikes so much – it makes a lot of sense to. That’s about where it ends for me. There’s no political meaning in it, and I don’t see bicyclists as a ‘class.’

26. Jf. We will never get above 5% cycling much less more. 1960 was a much different time. With today’s technology, we should be pushing for better faster public transport. The Richmond would be served well by a subway or rail on geary. We also will be in the of self driving zero emission cars very soon, and the roads should me maintained for that world. We should not be focused on changing laws for cyclists who blatantly disobey and have a crappy attitude towards other road users, including pedestrians. People dislike SF cyclists because most act like jerks. If the community cannot self police, the police should actively enforce cyclist blowing full speed through stops and red lights.

27. “Until then, I think the police has applied so far good judgement in how the law should be enforced. We would make them a favor by simplifying their work by voting a better adapted law.”

    I simply do not agree. If you stand on any intersection in the Richmond for 4 hours and count what percentage of auto drivers and bicyclists blow a stop sign you will see that it is not even close. I have in fact done this and 90% of the bicyclists fail to do a legal stop. About 15% of the autos fail to do a legal stop.

    Just because a bunch of bicyclists think that changing the “urban transportation culture” is a good idea, does not give them license to ignore the rule of law.

    The best way to get the support of the non-bicycling public is to set an example. A very high one at that.

    The failure of bicyclist interests to understand that dynamic will lead to nothing but continued frustration of all parties. If bicyclists LEAD BY EXAMPLE and scrupulously obeyed all traffic laws and turned the other cheek when drivers screwed up, they would build support for such changes in the vehicle code like stop/yield much faster.

28. I am blown away by the biker-hating here. I agree they, like EVERYONE, need to obey traffic laws but what’s with the bashing of people riding bicycles? Are drivers scared for the cyclists’ safety when they run a red? If you’re speaking as a pedestrian, I might understand being scared for your own safety. Drivers, how are bikers affecting your life? Are you afraid of hitting them? If so, show some concern, don’t call them jerks.

    As for the stance “it’s easy to get around the city in a car, who cares about biking”…wow. I am amazed at the total ignorance of how cities benefit when more people are biking. Especially in a city like SF where you can be outside comfortably 365 days a year! Most of the biking cities in Europe are in places with cold and wet weather. They are clean, safe, quiet and people are in great shape (they don’t have to go to little sweaty boxes called gyms).

    Biking in cities is dangerous. I’ve been doing it for the last 20 years in 5 major cities. We have no 2-ton metal cage around us, just a helmet. There are not many bike lanes and they are hardly respected by drivers when there are. I could go on – but this is a stupid argument because like I said, it’s about who is operating the vehicle or wearing the shoes. By the way, I stop at stop signs and do not ride on the sidewalk. That’s also about my own safety.

    More public transportation, definitely. Fewer cars, definitely. Safer streets for bikers and pedestrians, definitely. It would help everyone. We are not in competition!

29. None of us are bike haters. We are simply sick of the blatant disregard of rules by cyclists, and the attitude many cyclists have towards other road users and the law in general. It’s very easy for a cyclist to follow current laws, but 95% of them do not. Sled policing and getting other cyclists to obey rules instead of acting entitled and holier than thou would go a long way. We should all be pushing for better public transportation above anything else as this city is failing miserably in that regard. We should ticket ever cyclist and driver that doesn’t do a complete stop and use that money towards a useable subway system

30. Hear, hear on the public transportation, it’s pretty bad here. I and most of the people I know who ride a bike in SF do it because it cuts their public transportation time in half! Something to consider…

    I completely agree cyclists should be ticketed and obey the law. I was ticketed years ago (different city) and it made me a safer cyclist. So you’re saying it’s not hate, just a generalized judgment that people on bikes get to break the law and drivers don’t, and it’s not fair.

    OK, I just think that stance could be expressed with a bit more compassion, then we might get somewhere. Meanwhile, to everyone out there, please be more careful.

31. Sandra, you like it or not, population is growing. I wish it wasn’t, but it is. The current alternative to densification is then urban sprawl. I think densification is a better environmental choice.

    The best cities I experienced were the one with a good public transport that integrates well with bicycles. Bikes alone won’t work. Public transport alone won’t work. But the integration of the two is magic. Bikes gives you freedom and independence. Mass transit gives you the distance. Think about if you could put your bike on the train in Outer Richmond and then wander around downtown safely on your bike. Then take the train back home.

    The current bike lane urbanism is the wrong product. The city is trying to sell the wrong product. Only 3% buys it. One currently need some courage to take its bike out. My mother for example wouldn’t do it. With a better product offering, as offered in Copenhagen, she would enjoy riding a bike all day around town. I saw her scared here on our best bike lanes that are mixed with cars, but I saw her smiling on the Copenhagen bike path.

Comments are closed.